>The EU, which is where this regulation comes from, has no "monopoly on violence", it doesn't have any army or police jurisdiction.

That's like saying the legislature doesn't have a monopoly on violence because they don't have a police force or army. The EU laws are enforced through its member states. If they refuse they're kicked out, which usually provides enough incentive.

> If they refuse they're kicked out, which usually provides enough incentive.

Absolute bullshit. Member states cannot be forced out of the EU. Laws are proposed by the EC and voted by the EU Parliament, both of which are representative of the EU member states.

>Absolute bullshit. Member states cannot be forced out of the EU.

So what happens if EU enacts some sort of legislation, and a member state refuses to implement it?

>both of which are representative of the EU member states.

How is this relevant? Does having representation mean you don't have a monopoly on violence? That's like saying the US government doesn't have a monopoly on violence, because congress votes on laws and is representative of its citizens.

Why does no one think about the poor billion dollar companies being so oppressed by the violent state

You seem to have misunderstood my comment. I'm not feeling sorry for "the poor billion dollar companies", I'm just arguing they're not acting immorally.

Actually, while lots of ideas and phrases from the "libertarian book" are objectionable (as with every movement), this is one of those I find is the most clarifying of how the world actually works.

At the end, deep down, whenever you pass a law or regulation or whatever, you're essentially forcing people to do something at the threat of violence. That is how laws are enforced - either with fines, which turn into violence if you refuse to pay them, or with actual violence.

It's not an empty idea to remember that that is what is actually being proposed, even if it's sometimes painted in nicer language. (And less relevant to our immediate discussion, but this same concept is relevant in the fact that some minor offense can sometimes literally turn into police ending up killing people, e.g. the various horrible cases in the US that sparked BLM protests.)

>but this same concept is relevant in the fact that some minor offense can sometimes literally turn into police ending up killing people, e.g. the various horrible cases in the US that sparked BLM protests.

In free societies, the monopoly on violence is granted by the people in order to create a more just society than would exist in the alternative (power granted through popular or mob violence.) It only considers violence as encoded in law to be justified to that end, not all forms of violence committed by any person representing the state. So police arresting and detaining people is an example of the state exercising its monopoly on violence, but police brutality isn't.

Fair enough, and thanks for the correction.