In their ideas, proponents of coercive state power refer to so-called permissible (or even allegedly necessary) or “legitimate” violence, the commission of which should be a monopoly of a single agent (the state) in society. However, as a rule, no clear definition is given as to exactly what violence can be considered permissible, necessary, or legitimate, and in whose hands it should be. Everything comes down to goals: whatever goals a particular etatist adheres to—within those frameworks, violence is justified for them, and the “monopoly” on violence should belong to them and/or those who share their specific views. This is not changed even by an adherence to democracy, since a democrat would want the monopoly on violence to belong specifically to the proponents of democracy; they simply do not consider it important what their views on other issues may be.
For this reason, there can be no talk of any specific legitimacy of violence. For instance, an authoritarian conservative must understand that, in the opinion of an authoritarian communist, his place is two meters underground, and vice versa. Every proponent of violence has their own understanding of its legitimacy, which cannot be agreed upon.
A monopoly on violence cannot exist at all as a model implemented in practice. A stationary bandit’s “monopoly” on violence is lost as soon as other people, even within the same state, take power into their own hands. There are no eternal governments; sooner or later, there is either a change in power or a change in the views of some members of the current power (who, of course, eliminate from political life their very own colleagues of yesterday who held the previous views). And with the help of violence in new hands, and violence whose legitimacy is now justified differently, the achievements of those who previously considered violence legitimate only within the framework of their own views and monopolistically belonging only to their own hands are destroyed.
Moreover, the monopoly on violence is quite often violated by those who commit it in a private capacity. As long as there are people in society capable of committing violence under certain circumstances, statements about possessing a monopoly right to it will be an exaggeration. After all, “illegitimate” perpetrators of violence may even attempt to stage a coup. Would proponents of monarchy or democracy consider the Bolsheviks’ understanding of the applicability of violence to be legitimate? No. But in practice, that would change nothing.
In reality, the state can possess only a “comparative advantage in the application of violence,” which is what Max Weber wrote in his definition of the state itself. But this formulation was misunderstood by many or simply misreported, which led to the concept of a “monopoly on violence,” which does not exist in reality. And possessing only a comparative advantage in violence, rather than a fictitious monopoly over it, the statist cannot in any way guarantee that violence will work in their favor—someday this tool will be taken from them and used with full force against them, their supporters, and their ideas. And this once again speaks to why the tool of free activity and voluntary agreement is better compared to the tool of force.
