Well, this is about what is the proper way to conceive the state. Is it a tool people can seize, or is it better conceived of as a club of powerful people? I'm leaning towards the later, the earlier analogy that a State is the board the powerful play on. Or as I'm more claiming here, a club of powerful people.
1) More, hiring managers. For example, take Trump. Trump has a lot of power: people who are loyal to him, his wealth, and his personal skills that let him gain those powers. However, using that power individually is pretty inefficient: Trump trying to wield that power individually would result in much of that power not being efficiently used. So, instead you have his various agents to call and contact his loyals for him to collect their money and organize them into volunteers and other employees. He makes endorsements to transfer some of his power to others. And obviously his wealth is managed by probably a small army of accountants and other managements.
Thus, I'm conceptualizing the State as less an entity that grants power, than something the already powerful can flow their own power through, and by formalizing it make it more powerful. Trump was certainly more powerful with the Presidency than without, but he also is not powerless without the Presidency, and one of his main problems in becoming president was that he reached higher than his actual power could really inhabit. But, even though he didn't really have as much power going in as he really needed, going into the government did magnify his power, and he may still have more power having been in the government than pre-entering government: he was more able to effectively use his power inside than outside.
This is necessary for a successful government, that the powerful benefit from being in the ruling than outside. Because the powerful need to be invested in the Government to give it power and legitimacy. And powerful who are in the system but would benefit from not being in the system are inherently threatening and a risk to the system.
2) This seems like a pretty unambiguous mission statement:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
US Constitution, Preamble.
Constitutions are good sources of a states, at least theoretical, mission statement. The US is a fairly ideologically based State, and the constitution lays out a fairly specific mission for the State, including such details as mandating a Republican form of government, though much of the vision is more implied by the rules laid out in the constitution, rather than stated outright.
The USSR, being an even more explicitly ideological State, very explicitly lays out the mission/vision of what the Soviet Union's purpose was.
"The supreme goal af the Soviet state is the building of a classless communist society in which there will be public, communist self-government. The main aims of the people's socialist state are: to lay the material and technical foundation of communism, to perfect socialist social relations and transform them into communist relations, to mould the citizen of communist society, to raise the people's living and cultural standards, to safeguard the country's security, and to further the consolidation of peace and development of international co-operation.The Soviet people,
- guided by the ideas of scientific communism and true to their revolutionary traditions,
- relying on the great social, economic, and political gains of socialism,
- striving for the further development of socialist democracy,
- taking into account the international position of the USSR as part of the world system of socialism, and conscious of their internationalist responsibility,
- preserving continuity of the ideas and principles of the first Soviet Constitution of 1918, the 1924 Constitution of the USSR and the 1936 Constitution of the USSR,
hereby affirm the principle so the social structure and policy of the USSR, and define the rights, freedoms and obligations of citizens, and the principles of the organisation of the socialist state of the whole people, and its aims, and proclaim these in this Constitution."
End of 1977 USSR Constitution, Preamble
Most constitutions are less explicitly ideological, but there's generally something of a Mission. For example, the German constitution Starts:
"Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law."
So, in that one sentence you have God and "man" seemingly given equal weight as the guiding principles, which suggests a whole host of metaphysical assumptions underlying assumptions, and commits the German people to a global and European unification. The German constitution thus places peace and global cooperation as a core principle of the German State, which makes sense for a 1949 constitution.
The Polish constitution meanwhile is much more explicit about the purpose of the Polish State being the wellbeing of the Polish Nation. The Polish Pre-amble:
Having regard for the existence and future of our Homeland,
Which recovered, in 1989, the possibility of a sovereign and democratic determination of its fate,
We, the Polish Nation -all citizens of the Republic,
Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty,
As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources,
Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good -Poland,
Beholden to our ancestors for their labours, their struggle for independence achieved at great sacrifice, for our culture rooted in the Christian heritage of the Nation and in universal human values,
Recalling the best traditions of the First and the Second Republic,
Obliged to bequeath to future generations all that is valuable from our over one thousand years' heritage,
Bound in community with our compatriots dispersed throughout the world,
Aware of the need for cooperation with all countries for the good of the Human Family,
Mindful of the bitter experiences of the times when fundamental freedoms and human rights were violated in our Homeland,
Desiring to guarantee the rights of the citizens for all time, and to ensure diligence and efficiency in the work of public bodies,
Recognizing our responsibility before God or our own consciences,
Hereby establish this Constitution of the Republic of Poland as the basic law for the State, based on respect for freedom and justice, cooperation between the public powers, social dialogue as well as on the principle of subsidiarity in the strengthening the powers of citizens and their communities.
We call upon all those who will apply this Constitution for the good of the Third Republic to do so paying respect to the inherent dignity of the person, his or her right to freedom, the obligation of solidarity with others, and respect for these principles as the unshakeable foundation of the Republic of Poland.
Further articles of the constitution re-iterate a focus on the good of the Polish people, and emphasize that this is all poles, not just citizens of Poland the State:
Article 1
The Republic of Poland shall be the common good of all its citizens.
Article 5
The Republic of Poland shall safeguard the independence and integrity of its territory and ensure the freedoms and rights of persons and citizens, the security of the citizens, safeguard the national heritage and shall ensure the protection of the natural environment pursuant to the principles of sustainable development.
Article 6
1. The Republic of Poland shall provide conditions for the people's equal access to the products of culture which are the source of the Nation's identity, continuity and development.
2. The Republic of Poland shall provide assistance to Poles living abroad to maintain their links with the national cultural heritage.
This fairly clearly grounds one of the main missions of the Polish State the protection of the Polish Nation, both foreign and domestic. Other sections of course push other interests, such as to not be ruled by communists or Nazis.
Article 13
Political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership, shall be prohibited.
Hopefully, this all builds on the argument that States more or less must have a mission, or at least a vision that it works towards. My impression is that you more favor a Libertarian State, but separate from the merits of that mission, it is a mission to organize the state to, and a definite, most likely minority, mission to organize a State around. Libertarianism or Liberalism simply is not the default State of, well, a State.
And the trick to getting such a state is to have enough powerful people come together around that vision and to invest their power in the creation of that state, most likely because it improves their power in some way (see point 1).
3) Well, that idea presupposes stopping violence is the basic reason for a State to exist. Which might be a useful story for the social contract, but I'm not sure has much to do with reality. The State being a tool for the powerful to wield their power through is a much better descriptor of what the state is.
It also assumes the State, by which here we presume the sword, can be meaningfully separated out from the rest of the power structure. Basically, is the useful unit of analysis the State separately, or the ruling class more broadly? Which, by my current thinking, rests on three pillars:
1) The Sword (military, police, and other enforcement groups)
2) The Spirit (those who manage the "spirit" of the nation, such as churches and much more importantly universities)
3) The Wealth (the productive elements that pay for the other two)
In the middle ages, these are all fairly explicitly integrated into the State, with fairly blurred lines between any sort of private vs public sphere in our current meanings. The church, the King, and the Guilds seemed to all be fairly State like and integrated together. Very little outside the state, with sometimes not a lot of room past being outside the state to be against the state (theological differences being the big one). On the other hand of course, the state itself was fairly decentralized: the "sword", represented by the King and his warrior aristocracy were pre-eminent in the system for obvious reasons, but it often seemed a much more first among equals, at least in some situations.
Now, we want to try and keep those separate: keep money out of politics, keep politics out of economics, free the spirit from either of the other powers.
This I'm less sure is actually all that realistic of a goal: controlling the sword, say electing Reagan, doesn't actually seem to matter if you don't also control what Harvard is doing.
The communists seem to have gotten solid control of the education in the 70s, seem to have more or less taken corporate America in the 2010s, and now the military seems to be falling as well. The sword alone can only do so much. And in practice, doesn't operate that independently anyways.
The Mussolini quote has some radically different implications if understood as a goal to be worked for, or as the natural progression and behavior of a modern state. I'm concerned that may be more true than false.