The state’s monopoly on force leads to abuse. Without competition, police and military prioritize power over protection, harming the very citizens they’re meant to serve.
Discussion
All wildly compounded by the effects of fiat money
I would argue, that this is an argument that the monopoly on force needs very good legitimizsation. Not a generalistic one. No every single use of force. Every single policeman should be investigated in front of law just the same way as a criminal, when harm was caused. And when it can not be seen as objectively proportional, police should become the same treaty by lawenforcement as everyone else.
Separation of power is the key, I would argue.
It is not power that corrupts, it is the true face of each that emerges when there is no longer fear of consequences.
Catalonia could be a good case study: it has 4 police forces, but I wouldn't call it competition.
Each serves a different master:
👮♂️ Mossos d'Esquadra → Catalan gov
👮♂️ Policía Nacional → Madrid
👮♂️ Guardia Civil → Spanish Interior
👮♂️ Local cops → Mayors
Result? Not checks & balances, but tensions in the streets between the different forfes that end up harming its citizens (2017 referendum, 2019 protests).
Yet those "very citizens" will slander and murder one another over their state ordained right to stand in a line to endorse that very same state's system of violent control over them. It boggles the mind that intelligent people actually think it's a good idea to engage in party politics.
Let's ask AI how it sees this statement:
"The statement misses critical counterpoints. The state's monopoly on legitimate force isn't arbitrary - it exists because having multiple competing armed groups typically leads to civil conflict, warlordism, or private armies serving the highest bidder rather than public interest. Somalia in the 1990s and other failed states illustrate what happens when this monopoly breaks down.
The framing of "no competition" is also incomplete. In functioning democracies, state forces face different forms of accountability: electoral oversight, judicial review, civilian control, media scrutiny, and civil society monitoring. These aren't market competition, but they're competitive checks on power.
The reality is more nuanced than either "monopoly always corrupts" or "state force is inherently benevolent." The key isn't eliminating the state's role in security, but designing robust oversight mechanisms, maintaining civilian control, ensuring transparency, and preserving individual rights within that framework.
The challenge is structural: how do you maintain effective security while preventing the abuse of that necessary power? This remains an ongoing tension in democratic governance rather than a problem with a simple solution."