Weak states are abusive, strong enabling states are benign

An abusive state is one which either abuses directly or fails to curb the kinds of abuse which it is mandated to curb or prevent.

Weak states abuse citizens when they can't:

protect personal liberties, property or safety, create stable and productive political and economic conditions, etc either by stemming abuse by others or by select factions within. When the state is weak, it opens the door to abuse by entities other than the state, and by entities within the state, which act as predators rather than public servants.

Weak states abuse citizens when they practice caudillismo (selective violent abuse) while not holding a monopoly on physical violence.

People die when states are weak. People live when states are institutionally sound and capable of providing the resources needed for prosperity and for relief in times of crisis. When millions of people lost their lives in Szechuan in the 1870s famine, it was because the state was weak, not strong.

People die or become sick when states can't protect employees from working overtime or in dangerous conditions. People die or become sick when maternity leave is not guaranteed, when the elderly have no guaranteed incomes.

Some states are in fair shape institutionally but weak in relation to outside gangs: Columbia is one such example. It's abusive not so much for inherent reasons (it has a very professional and high quality civil service) but because it's not strong enough to curb abuse by the drug warlords who control a huge chunk of the country.

So it's not axiomatic that abuse is caused only through physical violence, that perverse obsession of Ayn Rand's. Just as parental neglect counts as abuse, so too does state neglect count as abuse.

Abuse is also perpetrated by the state when it writes laws and appropriates taxpayer money in ways that hamper equality of opportunity or which favor the rich and powerful at the expense of others. Abuse happens when states perpetuate vicious cycles of poverty. Abuse is perpetrated by the state when we pay it to protect us, but it won't fund shelters for battered women.

Speaking of abuse, will libertarians concede that organized wealthy interests abuse citizens as well? What's to be done about it? What is the libertarian Rx for curbing the abuse of businesses, those that dump toxic waste into rivers or gas companies that want to drill offshore?

The state exists because our desire for rights exist. And what are rights? Basically they are society's means for inducing sober, decent and mutually respectful behavior. If you desire that kind of behavior, you're going to have to pay for it and to submit to a certain degree of coercion by a state, a state which in turn is answerable to a sovereign PEOPLE.

Ayn Rand claimed that the lack of state power would dependably eliminate the abuse.

Perhaps now it is clear why I disagree with this. A regulation of state power eliminates abuse, while the lack of such power only opens the door to other kinds of abuse.

I conclude with a philosophical question:
If you had a choice between living in a society which enjoys a freedom of expression which only you are denied, or living in a society where only you had that right, which one would you choose (if a gun were put to your head and you were forced to choose?)