I feel that you've kind of missed GP's point, which is that we tend to take for granted the functions of the state, when in fact those functions have shifted ov

I feel that you've kind of missed GP's point, which is that we tend to take for granted the functions of the state, when in fact those functions have shifted over time. For example, it was not until relatively recently (i.e., the 20th century) that providing a social safety net came to be considered a core competency of governments. To take another example: the Roman Empire provided free rations of grain and olive oil (the annona) to all citizens of Rome and Constantinople for several hundred years. This was an incredibly big deal because it a) set a high base level of demand for bulk goods that enabled the huge economies of scale upon which Roman long distance trade operated; and b) enabled the populations of Rome and Constantinople to reach levels that no European city would again equal until the Early Modern period. Romans probably viewed the annona like modern Americans view social security. Romans would (probably) have thought social security ridiculous, whereas most Americans would view the annona as a large scale encroachment by the state on market pricing of commodities.