Based on your first couple of sentences, I feel like you don’t understand what the concept of the government possessing the monopoly on violence means… Like, in terms of that role socially (as in, for society) itself, or in practical terms. I’m particularly confused by you seeming to assert that technological advancement somehow had altered/was altering this… Governments have used - and I’m sure will continue to use - all of the things you mentioned and a great many more to maintain their monopoly of violence. It isn’t an actual office somewhere or anything technology can necessarily supplant, it’s more of a social construct/contract
My comment was referring to the fact that it is difficult if not impossible for governments to restrict a civilian’s access to effective lethal weapons. Legally, a government does maintain a monopoly on violence, and they can attempt to continue restricting the civilian’s access, but the continued development of technology is eroding the barrier of entry for effective weapons.
I understand it’s not a department or office lol, what I’m saying is any average joe now has the ability to download a single file off the internet and assemble a functional, reliable firearm with no prior experience. Or manufacture effective fragmentation IEDs. Or 3D print a lethal drone that can be controlled with a phone or a portable game console. With those developments, no population can be fully or effectively disarmed - so governments must accept that the population can be armed regardless of their wishes, and can disrupt the monopoly at any time.
Based on your first couple of sentences, I feel like you don’t understand what the concept of the government possessing the monopoly on violence means… Like, in terms of that role socially (as in, for society) itself, or in practical terms. I’m particularly confused by you seeming to assert that technological advancement somehow had altered/was altering this… Governments have used - and I’m sure will continue to use - all of the things you mentioned and a great many more to maintain their monopoly of violence. It isn’t an actual office somewhere or anything technology can necessarily supplant, it’s more of a social construct/contract
My comment was referring to the fact that it is difficult if not impossible for governments to restrict a civilian’s access to effective lethal weapons. Legally, a government does maintain a monopoly on violence, and they can attempt to continue restricting the civilian’s access, but the continued development of technology is eroding the barrier of entry for effective weapons.
I understand it’s not a department or office lol, what I’m saying is any average joe now has the ability to download a single file off the internet and assemble a functional, reliable firearm with no prior experience. Or manufacture effective fragmentation IEDs. Or 3D print a lethal drone that can be controlled with a phone or a portable game console. With those developments, no population can be fully or effectively disarmed - so governments must accept that the population can be armed regardless of their wishes, and can disrupt the monopoly at any time.