Introduction
The best way I can describe my overall political ideology is paleolibertarianism or some form of traditionalist anarcho-capitalism.
The State
My views on the state are essentially in-line with mainstream anarcho-capitalism and Rothbardianism. I see the State as a monopoly on violence, with it being the only entity capable of coercion, murder, and imprisonment without repercussion. The State is a bank a robber: it siphons off a certain amount of production from society. In fact, if not a bank robber, it's our conquerer, and we're forever paying our war reparations.
But how did this state come to be? Well, as outlined in Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard, there was a time were the closest thing to the state (a porto-state of sorts) were the tribes that would loot, rape, pillage, and murder opposing tribes, leaving their adversaries with nothing. But these tribes wisened up, and figured it would be more sustainable to siphon a continuous amount of resources from these opposing, lesser tribes, instead of a one-time payout and destruction. And so, this is how the state was formed: with one "over-tribe" siphoning as much resources as possible from their "under-tribes".
From here, the State would grow. These "over-tribes" (at this point: lords) would continue their conquest of external "under-tribes" (at this point: subjects). As the lords would conquer more and more subjects: centralization was "necessary" (insofar that the state needed to survive). So, these Lords would centralize, and every functioning of the State would become more rigid, institutionalized, and organized. Thus, Absolutism was born.
Absolutism would become the norm of governance in the West, calling for a total state of one individual. Absolutism would suffer a setback that no-one could predict: the Enlightenment. Philosophers of all kinds were offering their inputs on essentially every subject. What the Absolutes didn't expect was the two components of these inputs; they were revolutionary, and they were also widespread. This movement of Enlightenment would sow the seeds for what we know today as the modern state.
And so, as time went on and "democracy" spread, the state would simply keep on growing. The modern state holds a bigger military, stricter courts, heavier taxes, more surveillance, and far more power than any of the Lords or Absolutes could ever wish for.
The State as an Enemy of the Church
I oppose the state for a multitude of reasons, but none more than this. I personally see, as a faithful Christian, the State as the primary enemy of the Church and the Church's interests. The State has entirely displaced the Church, and this isn't a good thing. Allow me to explain.
For ease's sake, I am defining the "Church" not as a specific Church or denomination, but instead as a blanket, universal Church for all believers. This Church is composed of all Christians, and includes the Scriptures and Traditions generally present within all or most denominations. With this out of the way I will now explain.
For centuries, the moral authority of the West (and later, most of the world) was either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, or simply: the Church. The Church acted as the moral compass for society, it acted as the moral guidance for society, and its morals were not due to change or alteration: the Ten Commandments can not be changed, nor can the rules laid out in Scriptures. This provided society with a non-arbitrary, objective authority.
However, as time went on and philosophers did their philosophizing: criticism of the Church became widespread. The Church was faulted for many crimes and ailments (even if it was just specific denominations responsible). And with the culmination and success of the French Revolution: the State had displaced the Church and taken over as the leading moral authority of society.
This has been disastrous. Especially with the rise of Democracy, where even laws and policy are completely arbitrary and bend to whatever is popular at any given time. This means that the moral authority of society (the State) is likely to, and has many times before, change these morals on a whim. We can see this with homosexuality: originally a sin and crime, able to be punished for with death, has become a total norm: and it's seen as immoral to oppose it. This is an example of the capricious nature of the State when it comes to morality and law (which we must understand as law being a reflection of morality). If you don't believe that most people rely on the State as a moral authority: ask someone why they think something like smoking weed is bad. The likely response? "Because it's illegal".
However, this displacement of the Church has been inevitable. It is within the State's self-interest to obtain as much power over its subjects as possible, the State has an insatiable hunger for the expansion of its authority. It was inevitable that the State would wrangle with the Church for more power, as the Church was the biggest authority besides the State. As long as there is a State, the Church's influence will be diminished, God will be displaced, and religion will be thrown to the side. Anarchism is the only remedy to this societal ailment: as it would allow the Church to re-establish itself as the moral authority of society, especially considering the Non-Aggression Principle does not offer a complete moral framework. You can not be a Christian and a Statist.