In his book Drug Cartels Do Not Exist, Oswaldo Zavala argues that it’s not the state monopoly on violence that is the issue, but the state monopoly on exception. The cop who decides that this teenager he caught with a joint, or speeding, or fighting someone else, shouldn’t be arrested, but that teenager doing the same things should be arrested, is an example of the monopoly on exception.
In his book Drug Cartels Do Not Exist, Oswaldo Zavala argues that it’s not the state monopoly on violence that is the issue, but the state monopoly on exception. The cop who decides that this teenager he caught with a joint, or speeding, or fighting someone else, shouldn’t be arrested, but that teenager doing the same things should be arrested, is an example of the monopoly on exception.
Is the argument that it’s okay for states to have a monopoly on violence as long as they’re consistent about it?
I’m not sure I want that, either.
You can consistently do the wrong thing.
No, it’s more of a clarification and expansion. States do not only have a monopoly on violence but on all exceptions to the law.