Government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Weber claims that the state is the "only human Gemeinschaft which lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimated use of physical force. However, this monopoly is limited to a certain geographical area, and in fact this limitation to a particular area is one of the things that defines a state."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.
This is mis-read by many Libertarians, including Charles Koch,[1] who directly funds a wide set of Libertarian institutional propaganda mills,[2] that this invalidates government. It does not.
Absent a monopoly, there are multiple parties that claim legitimacy over use of force, including lical strongmen, tribes, or corporations, for all of which there is an extensive history of same (including Koch Industries, to the present).
Government's monopoly is not for unlimited use of force, but for legitimate use.
And if some alternate structure emerges claiming this right, it is, ipso facto, government.
It is also possible for actual or nominal governments' use of force to be illegitimate. Which it rather frequently is.
It sounds like a more fundamental question is, "Who authorized this Max Weber dude to dictate who may legitimately use force?"
He has an opinion, I have an opinion, you have an opinion, Charles Koch has an opinion... everybody has an opinion.
At some point, the answer to questions like this always comes down to "God," or "Nobody," or "Whoever has the most money/biggest weapons." It's an unsatisfying debate.
The point is that this is the justification that's been cited by, and is at the root of, the criticism of government (and, more covertly, taxes).
Koch uses this as his justification, but misstates and apparently misunderstands the concept. This is his prior, the lynchpin of his argument, and it is mis-applied.
The sentiments of Weber are not inconsistent with a long prior line.
Your "God or Nobody" presumption is incorrect. The principles also arise out of systems studies and ontology.
Government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Weber claims that the state is the "only human Gemeinschaft which lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimated use of physical force. However, this monopoly is limited to a certain geographical area, and in fact this limitation to a particular area is one of the things that defines a state."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
This is mis-read by many Libertarians, including Charles Koch,[1] who directly funds a wide set of Libertarian institutional propaganda mills,[2] that this invalidates government. It does not.
Absent a monopoly, there are multiple parties that claim legitimacy over use of force, including lical strongmen, tribes, or corporations, for all of which there is an extensive history of same (including Koch Industries, to the present).
Government's monopoly is not for unlimited use of force, but for legitimate use.
And if some alternate structure emerges claiming this right, it is, ipso facto, government.
It is also possible for actual or nominal governments' use of force to be illegitimate. Which it rather frequently is.
________________________________
Notes:
1. https://www.marketplace.org/2015/10/21/business/corner-offic...
2. Amply documented, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Ko... https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Brothers