I think that at a basic level, personal politics typically reflect an individual's conceptualization of, and relationship to, Risk.
That's a huge and complicated subject of course, but to make up an example....
If you have $1,000,000....
Some people would want to put all of that money in one place because they could then track it closely and defend it strongly.
Some people would want to put it in 1000, or 10,000, separate locations because the loss if any one location was found/stolen from would be much smaller.
Some people would want to spend the money on tools and infrastructure that improve their individual safety (a house in a better neighborhood, a work shop with all the tools needed to earn a living even without a job).
Some people would want to invest it in other companies in order to realize a return on the value of the money, even though there is a chance that the money will be lost.
On and on.... there are a lot of mutually exclusive but in themselves fully rational approaches to that situation.
The choice any given person picks says less about the objective reality of the situation than about how the individual conceptualizes (understand), and tolerates (is willing to accept), risk. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that these biases form early in childhood, and some scientific evidence that they may even have a genetic basis. That said, they can also be learned and people can be sensitized to different viewpoints as well.
Those biases will play out in a lot of ways. Whether and how a person saves money, the types of skills they learn, their political views and vision of an ideal government, ideal society, etc., their views on food safety, and so on. It isn't surprising at all that a deliberate Way Of Eating (a conscious choice, vs. following habit) would attract people with a certain conceptualization of risk, and that it would therefore correlate to political views, religious views, lifestyle choices, et cetera.
Cryptocode says that if I'm innocent, I don't have to worry about private cops and private jails. Really? Who's going to judge my innocence? Private judges and jurors who are being paid by the prosecutor?
Income tax, property tax, licensing fees, user fees, traffic fines (especially photo radar and red light cameras), etc, etc, etc......
Here's well-known libertarian Albert Nock:
This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour--nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times...People began to say, if this is what State abstention comes to, let us have some State intervention.
But the state had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly--the landlord's monopoly of economic rent--thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labor market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus
Actually reading your quote, the state didn't "protect" anyone's rights but its own (my arguement in the first place). "The State established one monopoly...." and "...this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little extortion or none...."
The state perpetrated the theft, and gave to the landlords. It THEN protected the rights of the new landlords (its friends).
If I refuse to pay my income tax, the state will come and take it from me by threat of violence (imprisonment), how does that protect my property rights in any way whatsoever?