one thing i notice about statists, whether liberals or conservatives: i.e. everybody. they give an argument. i blow it up, twice for good measure. then they give another, perhaps totally incompatible with the first. i vaporize it. then another. then, remarkably, back to the first as though nothing ever happened. now some of these people regard themselves as "reality-based" and rational (that's the left's current persona). but it's incredibly obvious that reasons don't matter at all to them in this: any reason to believe in the legitimacy of the state is a good-enough reason; no reason not to is any good at all. it's exactly like arguing with a believer about god: they might give arguments, but arguments have nothing to do with it.
what it is about, in my view, is the desire to be subordinated. it hardly matters how or why or by whom or for what. oh we'll play with the policy preferences, but the overwhelming reality of domination is ignored, precisely because it is the affective heart, the libidinous bit. we've got too many bottoms chasing not enough tops.