Reply #6: Weber's definition of the state is descriptive, not prescriptive

[Euromutt]

When he coined the definition of the state being as the entity (within a given geopolitical area) with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force/violence, Weber was trying to indicate the one characteristic that all entities that can be described as "states" have in common. The description doesn't imply that the use of force/violence by (agents of) the state is by definition legitimate, nor did Weber intend it to mean that only agents of the state could legitimately use force/violence. And even in the most minarchist polity, the state does have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in the sense that, if a private citizen uses force, the state gets to determine whether that use of force was justified or not (e.g. in court).

Anyone who tells you that Weber's intent was prescriptive--i.e. that only agents of the state can legitimately use violence--doesn't understand what Weber was trying to get at.