The government has the monopoly of violence, if we arm all civilians like does in the United States, does it mean the state has no longer the monopoly of violence?
The concept of the “monopoly of violence” refers to the idea that the government, as a legitimate authority, has the sole right to use force or violence within a given territory to maintain law and order, and that this authority is derived from the consent of the governed. When civilians are armed, it does not necessarily mean that the government no longer has a monopoly of violence, as the government’s authority to use force is still recognized and maintained by law.
However, if all civilians are armed in a society, it can have various implications. It can potentially shift the power dynamics and balance of force within that society, as individuals or groups who possess weapons may be able to challenge or resist the authority of the government. It can also increase the likelihood of violent conflicts, accidents, and misuse of firearms, which can pose risks to public safety and security.
In countries like the United States, where civilian firearm ownership is widespread, the issue of the government’s monopoly of violence is often debated. While individuals have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the government still maintains its authority to enforce laws and use force in order to maintain public order and protect its citizens. The government has the responsibility to regulate and control the possession and use of firearms through laws and regulations, in order to balance individual rights with public safety considerations and uphold the principle of the monopoly of violence.