Yes, I am a statist, but not of the Hobbesian variety - if I read him correctly, he argued for a contractual origins of the state i.e. individuals enter a contract by which they vest their right to do violence to the sovereign to avoid a war of all against all. It is too individualistic, or neo-classical if you will, to my taste. I favor a more collectivist approach (cf. Max Weber or Emile Durkheim) who argue that the collective produces so to speak individuals and the contents of their minds, not the other way around.
Since it is the social structure and institutions that determines individual behavior, the best is such structure/institutions that minimize negative aspects of such behavior, such as war of all against all, abuse of one individual by another, etc., as well as provide for effective coordination of the collective effort. When large and diversified human assemblies are involved, such social structure/institution is the state and mediating institutions (such as interest groups, professional/labor associations, political parties, etc.). Without such structures, we would have an Afghanistan or an Ethiopia all over the world, where "justice" would be meted out by tribal elders, warlords, and assorted gangsters, as they see it fit.
I may also add that I like the Hobbesian concept of Leviathan for a different reason - namely its universalism. It stresses the rule of the Leviathan/State over everyone else, thus precluding capturing it by any particular interest group e.g. the business party as it is the case of the US. My ideal is the centrally planned state (with limited market niches circumscribed by careful planning) whose officers are appointed rather than elected in foolish popularity contests, and can be removed from office at any time; the appointing/removing bodies being the aforementioned political parties, professional/labor associations and interest groups. The European parliamentary system comes close.
Of course I understand that such a concept is an anathema to Homo Americanus who has no concept of the collective and the public good, is incapable of seeing the forest among the trees, and thus fancies himself with illusions of individualism and social groupings that cannot hold more than seven individuals and still function.
Wojtek