# Does the state have a monopoly on violence?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\
**Post date:** [October 21, 2025, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175/10 "2025-10-21T22:44:02Z")

</div>

> [@Red button or blue button dilemma](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-button-or-blue-button-dilemma/1024041/299):
>
> …The state does reflect the consensus of society on what violence is lawful, but not that its agents are an elite caste with the sole privilege of administering it.

This is pretty much indeed the case, though, which is why it is so important for there to be laws limiting how law enforcement officers can administer violence or the use of force.

With that said, our federal courts have ruled that if a law enforcement officer is arresting me, I am powerless to defend myself or resist in any way. And if the officer feels that I am threatening him (or her) in any way, they can employ deadly force against me.

I actually have a problem with much of this, because I think the pendulum has shifted much too far in the direction of law enforcement officers employing deadly force when it is not necessary or warranted.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-state-have-a-monopoly-on-violence/1024175)._