Churches and companies don't promulgate "laws", they promulgate "rules." Rules have consequences to breaking them, but these consequences may vary widely in eff

Churches and companies don't promulgate "laws", they promulgate "rules." Rules have consequences to breaking them, but these consequences may vary widely in effect on the individual. A priest can try to make you feel guilty for breaking the religious edicts of his church, but if you don't consider his self-proclaimed authority in your life to have any basis, then guilt will be an ineffective consequence for breaking the rule. Companies, similarly, can fire you for breaking their rules, and while this deprives you of money and possibly opportunities, it does not deprive you of your life or freedom. In short, the authority of these private organizations are opt-out, while the authority of the state is not. It's circular logic to say that a state has a monopoly on only legitimate violence since it's the same state which defines which violence is legitimate and which is not. Can you think of any organizations that successfully exercise a monopoly on illegitimate violence? Successful states do not allow such activities to continue for long. A state is, as others have already said, simply a political institution which exercises a monopoly on violence and determines how to apply it within its political domain.