If you look elsewhere, I've pointed out that companies take on state-like functions and character when a government monopoly on violence hasn't yet been firmly established. The EIC is one such case.
My problem is that I am arguing a centre line that two schools of thought are misunderstanding. The centralisation of violence in the state serves a useful social function that decentralisation does poorly; but that selfsame centralisation is dangerous and must be closely and jealously guarded.
The first clause of my argument angers certain strains of libertarian and the second clause confuses various kinds of leftists who mistake me for a libertarian.
The best techniques I'm aware of are either a benevolent monarch -- which is ostensibly great until the benevolent monarch dies or is killed -- or by dividing the state against itself in a structured way.
My problem is that I am arguing a centre line that two schools of thought are misunderstanding. The centralisation of violence in the state serves a useful social function that decentralisation does poorly; but that selfsame centralisation is dangerous and must be closely and jealously guarded.
The first clause of my argument angers certain strains of libertarian and the second clause confuses various kinds of leftists who mistake me for a libertarian.