[ALawPoker]

I like the state for its consistency and uniformity.

I also like compromising a preference for the sake of having more combined force to defend the set of preferences. If states did not exist, people would still desire to defend their preferences. People would recognize that coalitions are the best way to do this. People would still have to compromise. The state provides a simple and effortless way for this to happen, and despite its inherent inefficiency, I like that this is taken care of for me. It allows me to worry about other things.

I'm about as libertarian as they come. I make a living playing poker, smoke ***, jack off to the thought of capitalism -- basically any demographic you can point to, that's me. But I recognize that stuff as nothing more than my preferences. Even if I can argue that the free market is inherently more efficient than a regulated market, I'm still making the assumption that efficient production is more important than equality. Someone who values equality would have an easy answer to "love" the state -- without uniform standards and regulations, their ideal of equality could not be met.

I don't personally like anything that the state happens to do, but that's because I prefer a total lack of interference in my life and don't care much what other people do with theirs. So there is nothing the state possibly *could* do that I would appreciate. Human nature though, is to coexist. Other people's preferences will be forced upon me. And I'd rather it be done with a state than without one (for the aforementioned convenience and consistency). It doesn't bother me that the state exists because I benefit a lot from coexisting with other human beings, and I see the state as simply a loose reflection of the preferences that would be exerted on me anyways.