Yeah sure there's a million ways but ultimately if you don't do what you're supposed to, that threat is there. I'm not suggesting that false dichotomy, you are

Yeah sure there's a million ways but ultimately if you don't do what you're supposed to, that threat is there. I'm not suggesting that false dichotomy, you are. What I am suggesting is that the state exists in it's current form largely because it does hold the monopoly on violence. The very definition of government is that it's the entity with the monopoly on violence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D64KcZsD82E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D64KcZsD82E How many steps removed does the guy toting the gun have to be in order for the implicit threat of violence to be OK? Zero? Two? Eight? How does the abstraction of that implicit threat make it any more palatable?