[thegrimmest]

> The purpose of the state is to be the most powerful organization in the room - to constrain other actors

I'm not sure this is a universal definition. Some of us just want a state that maintains a monopoly on violence, and otherwise does not constrain peaceful actors. An administration of peaceful coexistence rather than a mandate for cooperation. While administrating the peace does require some absolute power, it is required narrowly, to prosecute true crime, defend from outside threats, and resolve disputes.

[roughly]

How is an entity with a monopoly on violence not the most powerful actor in the room? And in what way is administering the peace not constraining other actors?

[rightbyte]

The state is not an entity except in a very abstract sense.

[antonvs]

> otherwise does not constrain peaceful actors.

Leading to individuals with net worths heading towards a trillion dollars who can just buy the government they want.

What you say you “want” is against your own interests.

[thegrimmest]

I'm perfectly happy for some folks to have trillion dollar net worth. I'm glad to negotiate with these folks and their organizations to provide value in exchange for a comfortable living.

> just buy the government they want

The idea of a constitution and separation of powers is to constrain the types of government that can legitimately exist. This does work to some degree. No matter how wealthy you are, you can't kill people in public. Money is to buy goods and services in a free exchange. When government agents acting in their official capacity accept money or the promise thereof in exchange for official action, this is called corruption. All human systems are corrupt, and no solution to corruption is perfect, but ours is pretty good compared to others.