Yes, I am aware of the history of literally. I am also aware that when you want to have a "substantive" response, then using hyperbole and claiming things have a definition that simply is not true is no way to have such responses.
If you read your link, including criticism, and realized that the phrase you hang your hat on is not at all where the field that coined it has evolved to over the past 1`00 years, you might as well also argue for a host of other antiquated ideas that are obsolete.
I find when someone clearly does not care to absorb new facts, and they jump to catch phrases and hyperbole, they don't care to learn, and often taunting them gets them mad enough to learn something, when simply presenting the ideas will not suffice.
You fall into that camp. If you want to present Weber's phrase as "literally the definition" of anything, spend some time reading criticisms and Weber's ideas and the evolution of mankind's thought on the topic.
Oh, you're one of those people. Rather than giving a substantive response, you're going to dismiss me because I used the word "literally" in a way not to your liking, despite the fact that the usage of "literally" to mean "figuratively" has been common in English idiomatic practice since at least the 1700s.
And as far as the monopoly on violence goes, by all means, if you're going to go through the effort to condescend to me, enlighten me as well.