> I think this illustrates that the monopoly on “legitimate” violence held by the state comes with a very clear obligation to either use that monopoly or allow

> I think this illustrates that the monopoly on “legitimate” violence held by the state comes with a very clear obligation to either use that monopoly or allow others to use violence, otherwise people will see the state as having abdicated its fundamental duty. That part after the 'or' is quite sloppy as written. It's unclear if you are merely warning that vigilante justice may follow if the police don't do their job-- a truism; arguing for citizen's arrest that follows the same (or more stringent) basic procedures as police use; or whether you are attempting to rationalize expansion of violence to everyday citizens as those citizens see fit to protect their property.