The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state.
Absent this, one of three conditions exist;
1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state.
2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power).
3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State.
The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy
Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54.
The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
I am aware of the original definition and am not simply parroting it. I am questioning the idea of legitimacy here. Capriciousness is a highly relative term that is influenced by class and social differences i.e. what will appear legitimate and normal to an economically established person will be much more violent to a person of lower status.
The other problem is that even if you admit that legitimacy is a thing and not a circular construct (i.e. the idea is reinforced to promote the relative power of the group that sees itself as legitimate, and gains currency because the group is already powerful), you still have other states to contend with that are just against each other with no rules above them. And of course the capriciousness of a state against another state is seen as just normal diplomacy because we are used to it, when in fact it is often quite a brutal affair.
Legitimacy isn't what you'd emphasized initially, however, and my sense is that presenting Weber's definition and analyzing it with specific focus brings the issue to light more usefully.
I agree that the question of legitimacy is central, and highly concerning.
Intrastate conflict would fall outside Weber's definition, though how specifically that occurs can vary, e.g., within international zones (usually maritime, occasionally air or space, outside of Antarctica very seldom on land), or with border / sovereignty conflicts (India/Pakistan, India/China, China/Taiwan, North & South Korea, Israel/Palestine, Russia and numerous former Soviet republics, etc.), failed states (Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan), or geopolitics (numerous US invasions, incursions, regime-changes, etc., for example).
What the US is doing in terms of demanding device access and holding data for inordinate lengths of time, as well as numerous other examples of the state-capitalist surveillance apparatus is exceedingly troubling.
But getting Weber's definition correct makes for a better basis for discussion.
Absent this, one of three conditions exist;
1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state.
2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power).
3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State.
The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy
Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54.
<https://archive.org/details/economysociety00webe/page/54/mod...>
There's an excellent explanation of the common misunderstanding in this episode of the Talking Politics podcast: <https://play.acast.com/s/history-of-ideas/weberonleadership>
The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.