I don't know what a "statist" is (someone who abhors change?), but I get the gist of your argument: since the state is built on a violence monopoly, a larger state should necessitate more violence.
Look up "statism". An excellent resource to help understand it is the "Nolan Chart".
But no, it's not resistance to change.
However, that argument is purely a play on words. Every data points available to us through most history shows the inverse relation, a stronger state generally gives a less violent society.
Don't tell me that.
Tell the near 80 million Chinese that were murdered by their "stronger state".
Or you could tell it to the 60 or 70 million Russians murdered by the strength of the Soviet state.
Or you could praise the strength of the Khmer Rouge for their incredible strength as they wiped out millions of Cambodians.
Then there's the United States of America. The strongest state in the world, and responsible for countless millions dying. 3 million people in Vietnam. Millions more in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's kind of hard to put the numbers on how many people are murdered inside the US by that strong state. It's pretty much every week that some cop murders someone in cold blood, but they never seem to face justice. Human experimentation in the US? Squalene? Syphilis experiments on civilians? etc. etc.
There are countless more examples.
Please tell me more about how strong states make the world "less violent".
There is a world outside the US borders. You are confusing your dislike for your own country with a general argument against states. Most countries tick along happily and have none of your drama.