> Governments by definition have a monopoly on force.
I've never heard that definition of government. Also, at least in the US (and presumably everywhere else), private citizens have the right to use force under various circumstances.
I've never heard that definition of government. Also, at least in the US (and presumably everywhere else), private citizens have the right to use force under various circumstances.
> private citizens have the right to use force under various circumstances.
Yup, as defined by the government. You can defend yourself in certain circumstances, but you are always subservient to the military and police. They are the ultimate power in the state. If there was a force stronger than the military or police, that power would then be the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)
It is probably the most common definition. As per this definition, the citizens can use force because the state grants them that right.
Can you start a private army to compete (not meaning fight it, but to provide the same services) with the state's army ?
If you have to pay for it (you actually pay for the army to force you to pay for it...), and you can't compete with it for the services it provides, it's not only a monopoly, it's also a tyranny.