Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2222:, 12th July 2025, State's Monopoly on Violence is unLawful by it's own Actions and Laws

Journal across Realities, Time, Space, Soul-States.

Steven Work

Jul 13, 2025

—

July 12th, 2025

Good Saturday,

May the Spirit of the Gospel and the Holy Word be Always on our Tongues, in our Hearts, Minds, and in our Hands.

Holy Virgin Mother Mary and All Saints - Pray for us!

—

Index Number 2222:

— —

—

May this article find us all ever closer to God, and His Truth.

Here is a quick summary of the follow argument(s).

—

The modern democratic State claims the exclusive right to exercise legitimate violence within its jurisdiction. This monopoly, classically justified by social contract theory and the pursuit of justice, is contingent upon moral consistency, equal treatment under law, and impartial application of force.

This below paper argues that the State's long-standing sanctioning of abortion, combined with sex-based disparities in legal rights and access to lethal power, invalidates its claim to such a monopoly. Consequently, the State has forfeited its moral authority and constitutional legitimacy to act as sole wielder of force or moral arbiter in matters such as family law.

The argument is further extended to the domain of economic justice, where the State's protection and empowerment of corporations as "super-persons" with disproportionate rights and resources has rendered real, living persons—especially the poor and elderly—as vulnerable as the unborn, deprived of protection and recourse when essential services are denied or withdrawn.

—

Thank you in advance for your attention and any possible support to spread this argument to other for an opportunity in debates and considerations.

God Bless., Steven

Here is an AI generated audio overview of this argument(s).

1×

0:00

-12:10

URL: https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/0a0572a6-8c54-4bbf-a3eb-829aae5e81e4/audio

Title: The Illegitimacy of the Modern State's Monopoly on Violence: A Constitutional Critique

Abstract: The modern democratic State claims the exclusive right to exercise legitimate violence within its jurisdiction. This monopoly, classically justified by social contract theory and the pursuit of justice, is contingent upon moral consistency, equal treatment under law, and impartial application of force. This paper argues that the State's long-standing sanctioning of abortion, combined with sex-based disparities in legal rights and access to lethal power, invalidates its claim to such a monopoly. Consequently, the State has forfeited its moral authority and constitutional legitimacy to act as sole wielder of force or moral arbiter in matters such as family law. The argument is further extended to the domain of economic justice, where the State's protection and empowerment of corporations as "super-persons" with disproportionate rights and resources has rendered real, living persons—especially the poor and elderly—as vulnerable as the unborn, deprived of protection and recourse when essential services are denied or withdrawn.

I. Introduction

The concept of the State's monopoly on violence, as articulated by Max Weber and enshrined implicitly in modern constitutional democracies, presumes a foundation of moral restraint and universal justice. It is this presumed integrity that justifies the State's exclusive power to enforce laws, exact punishment, and override private force.

However, when the State uses this monopoly to permit or even promote private acts of lethal violence without public scrutiny or legal process—such as through the legalization of abortion—it contradicts its own foundational principles. Moreover, when it does so in a sex-discriminatory manner, denying men equivalent legal rights or moral standing, it violates the equal protection guarantees of constitutional law.

II. The Constitutional Basis of State Force

Modern constitutions, including that of the United States, presume that government power is derived from the people and constrained by rule of law. The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments in particular provide for due process, equal protection, and the sanctity of life and liberty.

The State's power to use force, whether through law enforcement, war powers, or judicial punishment, is tightly bound to procedural safeguards. This principle extends to protection of life: the government cannot deprive persons of life without due process of law.

Yet abortion, as currently practiced, is an extra-judicial act of intentional killing authorized by the State, with no trial, hearing, or burden of justification beyond the private desire of one party.

III. Abortion and the Delegation of Lethal Force

Since Roe v. Wade (1973) and especially under Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the U.S. legal framework has granted women the ability to authorize the termination of a developing life within their wombs. This delegation of lethal force is:

Not constrained by due process
Not overseen by neutral public authority
Not subject to cross-examination or opposing argument

Thus, the State has contracted out its power of life and death to a private individual, based on subjective reasoning, sex-based status, and with no reciprocal rights for the father. This is inconsistent with any constitutional vision of ordered liberty or equal justice.

IV. Sex-Based Disparity and Legal Incoherence

The legal right to abortion is not universally available to both sexes. Only women may exercise this lethal discretion; men are excluded categorically.

This creates two systems of law:

One in which women are sovereigns over life and death of their offspring
Another in which men have no comparable recourse, standing, or authority

This disparity contradicts the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the laws to all persons. No just State can claim legitimacy while authorizing violence for one class and denying equal redress or moral standing to another.

V. Consequences for the State's Monopoly on Force

By permitting one class of citizen to kill at will, the State has:

Abdicated its exclusive claim to regulate violence
Undermined the universality of its law
Betrayed its obligation to protect life impartially

Furthermore, by enforcing this system selectively—e.g., prosecuting private violence by men, but ignoring lethal acts by women under the abortion regime—the State weaponizes its monopoly politically, not morally.

Such a government cannot be trusted to wield force justly, nor to determine when violence is warranted. The monopoly, once predicated on reason and justice, now functions arbitrarily and discriminatorily.

VI. Motion for Judicial Redress: The Father's Right to Protect Life

Given the moral and legal incoherence demonstrated above, it follows that the State cannot claim a just and exclusive monopoly on violence in matters where it has abandoned its duty to protect innocent life, specifically that of the unborn.

A father, under both Natural Law and civil duty, possesses a right, obligation, and moral imperative to protect his offspring from unjust harm or death. When the State sanctions the killing of unborn children without offering the father legal standing, redress, or protective authority, it becomes complicit in an injustice that transcends mere procedural failure.

No legitimate State may criminalize a father’s resistance to the destruction of his unborn child while simultaneously refusing him access to lawful protection of that child. The State, having permitted and protected a one-sided power of life and death, has relinquished its claim to be the sole moral and legal authority over protective force.

Therefore, this court must recognize:

That the State’s authorization of abortion violates Natural Law, due process, and equal protection.
That a father’s duty to protect his unborn child is an inalienable right rooted in nature and affirmed by civil society’s foundational ethics.
That any use of State violence—whether through law enforcement or judicial punishment—against a father exercising this duty is illegitimate.
That the State must not only permit but actively support the father in fulfilling this obligation to protect his child from unjust harm, including from abortion.

Until the law is corrected to affirm this natural and constitutional duty, the father’s obligation stands above unjust statutes and bureaucratic fiat. The State must either reform itself to protect all life equally or surrender its pretension to moral and legal supremacy in matters of life and family.

VII. Motion for Judicial Redress: The Public Duty to Protect Life

Where the father is unable, unaware, or obstructed from fulfilling his natural and civil duty to protect his unborn child from death by abortion, the duty devolves to the broader community under Natural Law and moral obligation.

Any adult who becomes aware that an unborn child is at risk of imminent abortion, and who takes upon themselves the role of protector in place of the father, should be granted the same legal and moral standing as the father in this matter.

This surrogate protector acts not from personal claim but from a universal duty to defend innocent life from unjust killing. Such action is consistent with the principles of parens patriae when the State fails to protect the vulnerable.

Accordingly, this court must recognize:

That any morally aware and willing adult may exercise the father's duty when the father cannot.
That the State has an obligation to protect and support such individuals in preventing the death of an unborn child.
That it is unconstitutional and unjust for the State to penalize or use violence against such persons who act lawfully and morally to defend innocent life.
That the State must provide legal recognition, immunity from prosecution, and material support to those who intervene to stop abortion in fulfillment of a universal moral obligation.

The obligation to prevent unjust killing is not extinguished by the failure or absence of biological parenthood. The duty to protect life transcends familial titles and legal fictions, resting instead on the shared humanity and moral responsibility inherent to civil society.

VIII. Conclusion

The modern State, in sanctioning abortion while denying equal legal standing to both sexes and failing to uphold universal standards of justice, has forfeited the moral and constitutional basis for its monopoly on violence. It no longer functions as a neutral arbiter but as a biased enabler of selective lethal power.

A just society must reconsider the foundations of political authority and revisit the conditions under which the State may wield force. Until consistency, equality, and due process are restored, the State's monopoly on violence is illegitimate and must be challenged both legally and morally.

In particular, the State must be restrained from interfering with, and required to assist, the father—and any rightful adult acting in his place—in the lawful and moral duty to protect the unborn from abortion.

IX. Motion for Judicial Redress: Corporate Personhood, Economic Violence, and Service-Based Termination

In light of the State’s continued recognition of corporate personhood and the Supreme Court’s ruling that "money is speech" (Citizens United v. FEC), corporations have assumed a legal status that often exceeds that of living human persons. Upon incorporation—mere legal conception—entities are endowed with speech rights, access to courts, protections of property, and the ability to influence policy on a scale unavailable to the average citizen.

Meanwhile, the majority of actual citizens—particularly the elderly, poor, disabled, and working class—struggle under a regime where corporations suppress wages, externalize costs to taxpayers, and receive unrestricted access to publicly funded research and infrastructure without reciprocal duties of care.

Corporations now function analogously to the privileged mother in abortion law:

They possess unchecked power to terminate essential relationships (employment, housing, medical coverage, utilities) with real persons.
They do so without meaningful public review, oversight, or moral accountability.
They act as legal sovereigns, empowered by the State’s force and protected from intervention, just as the mother is protected in terminating her unborn child.

If the State recognizes the moral principle that no person may kill the unborn unjustly, then by parity of reasoning, no corporate entity—imbued with legal personhood—may abort life-sustaining services to the public without at least legal review and a moral burden of justification.

Therefore, this Court must recognize:

That the termination of essential services (employment, utilities, medication, care) by corporations constitutes a form of economic violence.
That such violence is functionally equivalent to the deprivation of life support, and morally analogous to abortion of the unborn.
That poor and dependent persons occupy the same vulnerable position relative to corporations as the unborn do to the aborting mother.
That the State, having failed to regulate this imbalance, may not justly exercise violence (fines, incarceration, forfeiture) to protect the corporate act of termination over the real human needs of the citizen.
That real persons must be entitled to legal standing to challenge and prevent the unjust "abortion" of life-sustaining relationships by corporations.
That the State must cease aiding corporations in these actions unless it can affirmatively justify them as necessary for the common good, and provide access to alternative life-sustaining support for those affected.

Just as the unborn deserve representation and protection in a just society, so too do the economically vulnerable deserve legal defense from the arbitrary and profit-driven violence of corporate super-persons. The Court must affirm this obligation or admit that the law protects fiction over life.

X. Final Conclusion

The modern State has consistently and increasingly used its monopoly on violence to protect artificial constructs (corporations) and partial interests (abortion rights of one sex) while denying equal protection and defense to vulnerable real persons—whether unborn, male, poor, or dependent.

The rule of law cannot survive such asymmetry. A State that exercises violence unequally, shields fictional entities from accountability, and permits real persons to suffer unredressed termination of their lives or life-supporting relationships cannot be said to govern justly.

This Court must therefore declare:

That the State must restore balance by restraining unjust violence, whether physical or economic.
That both unborn children and vulnerable adults deserve protection from unilateral, unreviewed termination.
That until justice is reestablished in both public and private law, the State's claim to a moral monopoly on violence stands revoked.

Steven’s Newsletter

Discussion about this post