# Does the state have a monopoly on violence? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 21, 2025, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175 "2025-10-21T21:11:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/141 "2025-11-04T18:02:12Z")
Then why didn’t gun violence skyrocket after most states ended “May Issue” rules for carry? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/142 "2025-11-04T18:02:18Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Constitutionally, it would be very problematic for the US federal government to sign away in a treaty the possession of small arms Why would it be more problematic than a treaty signing away possession of nuclear weapons or battleships? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/143 "2025-11-04T18:08:06Z")
Because nuclear weapons and battleships are possessions of the United States government, which the government can decide to possess and decide not to possess by choice. And in any event treaties can be abrogated. Intrusions upon the private rights of United States citizens is a different matter. Imagine if the USA signed a treaty with several Islamic nations that henceforth blasphemy against the Quran or the Prophet would be a hate crime punishable by US statute law. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/144 "2025-11-04T18:27:24Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Then why didn’t gun violence skyrocket after most states ended “May Issue” rules for carry? America is filled with a sea of guns, such laws are irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/145 "2025-11-04T18:40:05Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Because nuclear weapons and battleships are possessions of the United States government, which the government can decide to possess and decide not to possess by choice Why? There is no constitutional limit between small arms and other arms (and the fact it explicitly calls out a militia implies the arms people should have freedom to bare are military grade ones) ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/146 "2025-11-04T21:18:02Z")
Maybe the US government could sign a treaty saying that the US **Army** would forego fielding rifles; insisting that no citizen of the USA could legally own a rifle would be considered flatly tyrannical by many. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/147 "2025-11-04T22:10:31Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Maybe the US government could sign a treaty saying that the US **Army** would forego fielding rifles; insisting that no citizen of the USA could legally own a rifle would be considered flatly tyrannical by many But why would signing a treaty that no citizen of the USA could own a heavy machine gun (or a light one) or a howitzer or a tank, or a nuclear weapon, be more constitutional? No foreign power would accept a treaty that bans just the US Army from having more than 100 machine guns, but allows “the militia” to have as many as they want ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2025, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/148 "2025-11-04T22:21:34Z")
Can constitutional rights be signed away by treaty? One would think not, but some people claim that if a militarily defeated USA had to sign a punitive peace treaty that imposed violations of the Bill of Rights, that that would be legally valid. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2025, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/149 "2025-11-05T02:59:27Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Can constitutional rights be signed away by treaty? It can according to you… > [@Lumpy](#): > > even if a billionaire could buy them or make their own– would infringe on the government’s constitutional monopoly to declare war and negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Clearly a treaty would be worthless if the US government had to add “but we can’t say what any of our nuclear-armed citizens might do”. What constitutional reason is there that this would apply to nuclear weapons but not machine guns? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2025, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/150 "2025-11-05T17:50:52Z")
> [@robby](#): > > So a potential mugger who is aware of this may thereby be deterred from mugging people. An even better deterrent is money. Not a lot of prosperous, well-fed folks out in the streets mugging people. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2025, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/151 "2025-11-12T00:08:01Z")
I think this quote from the linked article is germane to the discussion > In regions where the state does not establish full control of violence, non-state actors such as the Sicilian Mafia in southern Italy create and fill a market for private protection.[[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence#cite_note-7) Another example is some of the favela regions in Brazil. IOW (and as I remember it from Poly Sci class in college), the concept of a “monopoly on violence” is that the state ultimately must have the power to enforce the law. Not so much to “keep the savages in check” but to prevent fringe elements, militias, and other unelected non-state actors from becoming the de-facto law. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2025, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/152 "2025-11-12T00:37:25Z")
Which incidentally is why vigilantism is the supreme crime as far as most governments go; worse than the rape, torture and murder of little children, worse than cannibalism, worse than blood sacrifice in the worship of Satan. Thus failed states, like a government still trying to enforce quarantines after a pandemic apocalypse takes down civilization, will continue to engage in [anarcho-tyranny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Francis_(writer)#Thought_and_legacy) rather than allow people to defend themselves against brigandage. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2025, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/153 "2025-11-12T01:31:50Z")
That’s pretty much it. ---
**Author:** ![xtenkfarpl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c2a13f/32.png) [@xtenkfarpl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xtenkfarpl)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2025, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/154 "2025-11-12T16:55:19Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > the state ultimately must have the power to enforce the law. Not so much to “keep the savages in check” but to prevent fringe elements, militias, and other unelected non-state actors from becoming the de-facto law. As I’ve said upthread: in some ways the government is just the biggest protection racket in town. > [@Lumpy](#): > > Thus failed states, like a government still trying to enforce quarantines after a pandemic apocalypse takes down civilization, will continue to engage in [anarcho-tyranny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Francis_(writer)#Thought_and_legacy) rather than allow people to defend themselves against brigandage. In a situation like that, the ‘state’ has degenerated into just one among many bandit warlords, I think. Not a pleasant situation to live in, because you have to give up your resources to whichever is the latest bunch of thugs to come by with AK47s. At least an established protection racket which is large enough to mostly suppress competitors (like most western governments) is often smart enough to realize that it’s more efficient in the long term to milk the cow rather than kill it for beef. Meaning taxes, of course. I guess I have a rather cynical view of political science…. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2025, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/155 "2025-11-13T03:36:54Z")
> [@xtenkfarpl](#): > > As I’ve said upthread: in some ways the government is just the biggest protection racket in town. It sort of needs to be, doesn’t it? Ideally it’s a government that is representative of the people it governs and not just who has the most and biggest guns. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2025, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/156 "2025-11-13T04:27:12Z")
> [@xtenkfarpl](#): > > At least an established protection racket which is large enough to mostly suppress competitors (like most western governments) is often smart enough to realize that it’s more efficient in the long term to milk the cow rather than kill it for beef. Meaning taxes, of course. It’s enlightened self interest in action. Also, most modern states provide actual services for those taxes. Outright kleptocracies are the minority. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175.md?page=7)