The definition of the state as the "monopoly on violence" only works if you think that states inherently have the right to their power. America, on the other hand, believes that the government gets its power from the people and the people have the right to take away that power if it is misused. In effect, Americans have contractually given the state the essential powers of violence but still keep the means to take that power back. That's why Americans have had the right to firearms before the United States even existed.
> The definition of the state as the "monopoly on violence" only works if you think that states inherently have the right to their power.
Not at all. The idea is that the state has a mandate from its citizens to exercise violence (within due limits) to enforce the decisions of the citizens. It's a monopoly because citizens don't have the right to use violence against each other, and even if they do the state is guaranteed to be able to respond with enough force to make it stop.
> In effect, Americans have contractually given the state the essential powers of violence but still keep the means to take that power back.
This justification to arms ownership always strikes me as delusional. Whatever the amount of weapons in circulation there is absolutely no way American citizens could fight their own police and their own army.
Of course, but that's a last resort. You cannot ask someone who is in risk of imminent harm not to defend him/herself, although that should be the minimum use of force needed to fend off the danger (in the US as usual the law is less strict, in Europe you can shoot to defend your life but if it's proven that in that exact moment your life wasn't in danger you'll be charged).
> Please tell me the last time America won a war against a militia or insurrection embedded in the civilian population.
A clear case must be in 1865, when the Union won the civil war- at the cost of between 600k and 1 million dead. But there's of endless instances of the US police or national guard using force to repress protests, uprising and terrorism- as it is normal. It's hard to say whether these movements could have been more widespread if they hadn't been repressed through intelligence and use of force.
But can you point out an example of when a militia or an insurrection won against the US police or national guard?
> if you think that states inherently have the right to their power.
Why would I think that?
I'm saying that from the violence monopoly everything else is upheld by a first principle approach. If the state is overthrown the violence monopoly is either upheld by a new group, or you have no governing state.
Do you think people have the right to use violence for self defense? If so, who can people defend themselves from? Who can't they defend themselves from?
