[Rothbardian]

Not really. Every country's law allows private use of force when situation demands it.

The fact that the government can pass laws allowing private use of force just proves his point.

[lucky]

The normal definition of government involves the notion of a "monopoly on the legitimate use of force".

The fact that the government can pass laws allowing private use of force just proves his point.

That's not what the term "government monopoly" means. For example, there are also laws defining legitimate and illegitimate forms of sexual intercourse. That doesn't mean there is a government monopoly on legal sex.

[Rothbardian]

That's not what the term "government monopoly" means. For example, there are also laws defining legitimate and illegitimate forms of sexual intercourse. That doesn't mean there is a government monopoly on legal sex.

So if I get my 'right' to use violence from the government, that doesn't have any impact on the fact that the government has a monopoly on violence. That's like saying if I get my oil from standard oil, it no longer has a monopoly. The state claims the exclusive right to pass mandates, and those mandates are backed by it's threat of harm.

[Joe Liberty]

That's not what the term "government monopoly" means. For example, there are also laws defining legitimate and illegitimate forms of sexual intercourse. That doesn't mean there is a government monopoly on legal sex.

The difference being that government is force. It is nothing else. It can accomplish nothing without the use or threat of force. Thus, government is defined as a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

This isn't controversial.