This is a good topic for investigation, but you probably need to model it in more detail than you currently are. There are many dimensions and aspects to use of violence (and the threat of violence) that don’t quite fit the “monopoly” model. And many kinds of force/coercion that aren’t directly violent, even if they’re tenuously chained to violence via many causal steps.
I very much like the recognition that it’s an equilibrium—there are multiple opposing (and semi-opposing, if viewed in multiple dimensions) actors with various strength and willingness to harm or cooperate. It’s not clear whether there’s a single solution at any given time, but it is clear that it will shift over time, sometimes quickly, often slowly.
Another good exploration is “what rights exist without being enforced by violence (or the distant threat of violence)?” I’d argue almost none.
This is a good topic for investigation, but you probably need to model it in more detail than you currently are. There are many dimensions and aspects to use of violence (and the threat of violence) that don’t quite fit the “monopoly” model. And many kinds of force/coercion that aren’t directly violent, even if they’re tenuously chained to violence via many causal steps.
I very much like the recognition that it’s an equilibrium—there are multiple opposing (and semi-opposing, if viewed in multiple dimensions) actors with various strength and willingness to harm or cooperate. It’s not clear whether there’s a single solution at any given time, but it is clear that it will shift over time, sometimes quickly, often slowly.
Another good exploration is “what rights exist without being enforced by violence (or the distant threat of violence)?” I’d argue almost none.