Having certain elements controlled by a central authority makes good sense from a rational point of view.
We as a state control certain resources (air, water, land, etc.) that need to be protected and distributed equitably. Also, it seems to me that the people of a state have the right to decide what sort of physical environment they want to live in.
Who decides? Who profits? How do we protect? How do we enforce? Who pays? What is exploitation?
On the issue of safety measures, there will always be accidents. How do you distinguish between legitimate accidents that are in the nature of life, and ones that could have been avoided by implementing certain safety measures? You need a central authority.
I have worked in very dangerous laboratories with very dangerous materials and procedures. There is a balance that must be met between safety for the workers and the ability to do the work necessary in a finite amount of time. It cannot be left entirely up to employers to strike the balance, though they should have major input.
There is also the matter of infrastructure and agreement on standards. It takes a high level of initial investment to build - roads, electric lines, sewer systems, etc. There only needs to be one such system in each case, and typically there is not room for a number of different systems. This is the current battle being fought over the cable, telephone, and even electrical lines that are in the vast majority of our houses.
Public health is another area where a central authority is needed. Vaccination and purity standards for water are good examples of this.
Thus, there must be taxes of some description. Not necessarily income tax, but some way for the central authority to acquire capital. Even if you want to limit the government to simply providing protection for its citizens (which btw is a highly ambiguous statement).
There is also the issue of social unrest. Industry needs a stable society to make putting investments in factories, etc. worthwhile.
I am very much behind a free market economy, but I recognize the need for a central authority.
You have also made a number of statements that are highly questionable:
The people will lose every time because the state can only enforce its views through force, thus making it wrong.
Enforcement of rules, such as you advocate (putting people in prison for murder) will take the exercise of force. Especially if you want to apply those rules to people with money and power (execs). Further, someone has to decide who has the legitimacy to enforce any rules you make (or the state decides on), which is the exercise of another type of force. Ever hear the term tyranny of the majority? again there is a delicate balance to be met.
100% capitalism is the only system where physical force (unless in defense) is absolutely prohibited.
This is a totally bizarre thing to say, why would this be true? The only way to achieve this is through a strong central authority, as I note above. There are many systems that one can imagine where physical force is absolutely prohibited.
how will I ever be able to understand your erudite explanations?
