Comment by embedding-shape
2 hours ago
> In the U.S. I can lawfully use violence in many ways under many circumstances. I.E. if you’re in my house and I didn’t invite you there, I can slay you lawfully.
Yes, and you can do so, because the government and state says it's OK to do so. If they didn't, it wouldn't. This is the core idea.
> In the U.S. the federal government is not the only institution responsible for law making or law enforcement. It is not only entity that can lawfully use violence. Etc.
Hence the whole "sole arbiter of" and last paragraph in my last comment. All those entities are "allowed to use violence" because your government says it's OK.
If you define the entity as “all institutions that are allowed to create and enforce laws” and then say “that entity has a monopoly on creating and enforcing laws” you’ve created a tautology.
There are clear counter examples to your statement in the U.S.
States are not “allowed” to use violence because the Federal government says it’s okay. States have a right to create and enforce laws.