What's being referred to here is the premise of the monopoly on violence[0]. Essentially that a state can be defined as an entity which claims for itself a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, often violent force, denying the same right to the public. That legitimacy, in free societies is granted by the people, while in nonfree societies, it's often simply taken though further violence. The enforcement of laws and collecting of taxes are backed up by the threat of the state executing on its monopoly on violence against its citizens.

The opposite of the monopoly on violence would be anarchy, which could be interpreted as a free market of violence.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

100 years ago, maybe, as cited in your wiki link, that could have some interesting discussion behind it. But that model of the world quite clearly does not fit today, and viewing modern society like that is exactly the kind of attitude that results in our infrastructure - and morals - crumbling.

I can't find anything in that article that has any relevance to today.

The monopoly on violence is the way all civil societies work, even in the present day. It's why the police are legally allowed to beat someone, kidnap them against their will and throw them in a cage, and you aren't. It's why the social contract isn't a literal contract you needed to sign first before being subject to your government's authority.

Tax liens and wage garnishments are violence, apparently.