The point is that the entity given a monopoly on violence needs to be held to a higher standard than entities that aren't.
Re:Trying to interview Larry Page
by PhasmaFelis on Wednesday January 27, 2016 @10:58PM
(#10986133)
I can agree with that, and I hope that's what bko meant, but I've seen enough people (on HN and elsewhere) complaining specifically about the existence of the governmental monopoly on force that I wonder.
> What other group would you prefer to have a monopoly on violence?
The people. Governments can be illegitimate, e.g. not derive from the consent of the people, in which case government monopoly on violence yields oppression.
Violent revolutions are sometimes necessary in the course of human events. Without the people having the capacity to wage war on their government -- that is, the capacity for violence via the right to bear arms -- such revolutions are not possible.
People keep complaining about the "government monopoly on violence." What other group would you prefer to have a monopoly on violence? If the government doesn't enforce a monopoly, then invariably someone else will, in the process becoming the new government; or else two or more groups will actively dispute it, a condition commonly known as "war."