Right, one of many exceptions, hence my: > > which basically always has exceptions, anyway The really important part of the "monopoly on violence" idea is whe

Right, one of many exceptions, hence my: > > which basically always has exceptions, anyway The really important part of the "monopoly on violence" idea is whether a state has the power to claim such a monopoly. It's a measure of state efficacy—a state fails to be fully sovereign in its territory if it cannot claim such a monopoly, that is, if it is unable to effectively quash others' similar claims; or, if its claim to the monopoly lacks credibility. Say, if a cartel claimed the authority to regulate and dispense violence in part of the US and the federal government were unable to re-assert its claim there, that would be an indication of, at the very least, significantly eroded US sovereignty over that territory, if not the complete loss of it. A state making lethal force in self-defense legal doesn't challenge the state's claim of sovereignty, so isn't what's usually meant by this principle.