I guess where we diverge is that your assumption, that the state is impartial and that it’s primary role is to serve people, I see as fundamentally false. The state serves itself and it’s main purpose is to perpetuate itself (by that I mean people who are directly employed by it).
As the saying goes, civilisation is a veneer two (maybe three) meals thick. The state is that civilisation. For example, what you’re seeing in Houston now (end August 2017) in the wake of Hurricane/Storm Harvy is the state moving to act to help people who have lost out through the storm. We give to the state according to means, the state gives back according to needs — at least when it’s functioning correctly. The problems in places like Houston post-flood come if “citizens themselves decide” and their individual decisions are at odds with what’s needed for the wider community. (One can make broader points: polluting rivers might suit the individual, doesn’t suit the community/state/other citizens. Polluting the air, ditto. One could draw a line from there to carbon dioxide output and global warming, but this isn’t really the venue.)
The idea that the state should be ignored when its decisions don’t suit the individual is a dangerous one. Things can break down pretty quickly from there, whether done from the top or bottom of the pyramid.