Thanks for the critical thinking in your responses!

“Monopoly of violence” is a buzzy phrase in these parts. So the state is The State because it has a monopoly of violence…

I have questions on that.

What makes it a monopoly, and not something else?

What would be the going rate, or fair market value, for the services provided by this “monopoly of violence” if broken apart? Would someone like Elon Musk be able to buy those services? Has he already? Have other quasi private/public players more or less transacted these services? Is that a true monopoly, or are these services just quite expensive? Perhaps the state, NEVER, had the “monopoly of violence” to begin with and it is illusory.

Even with the obvious atrocities and surveillance, it’s not hard to imagine a calculation where one could derive that the governed citizens of America are actually getting a discount on these services. As you explained, economic growth heavily relies on a certain sort of violence to do its bidding or to protect it. To establish trust and continuity for the legal system and currency. Without it, market speculation is more or less impossible and the gears of investment grind to a halt.

Okay, so is it even a monopoly then? And sans The State, I’m confused as to why a “monopoly of violence” would not still either exist or be a constant threat.

These answers evade me on a philosophical level. “Monopoly of violence” feels like a marketing or advertising phrase intentionally crafted to make people repel the idea of The State. Which, okay, fine… but… weak.