Come on man. History is riddled with examples of the state acting on behalf of all different sorts of people and organizations. I mean you're talking about socialists revolutions take over a state which acts on their behalf.

In my precious comment I was describing specifically the state in a liberal, western democracy. That’s quite obviously different than the one in China, Cuba, which are in turn different than the one in Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. But you’re right! Different states act on behalf of different sets of people.

Not supporting the state is a fantasy? What does that even mean.

It means that it’s unattainable, only present in the minds of the ones who believe it. I don’t condone wars and killings, yet using ”pacifist” as one’s sole political identifier is meaningless. Wars exist for a reason, as do states, and if I oppose any of them I ought to analyze what causes them to exist in the first place and oppose that.

You're inability to imagine other types of human organization isn't an argument. It's your personal failure.

It’s not my inability to imagine that type of

The libertarian notion of a free state

Another incoherent concept. States are rights infringing organization by their very nature.

The USA

Directly against the Monarchy. No chopping off the heads of random people or taking over people's farms, etc.

Socialist/communist revolutionaries are not to be put in the same category. They're happily murderous.