In relinquishing our right to violence, we demand both influence over its use and transparent practices. Injustice arises when this exchange fails to be equitable, particularly when the government monopolizes violence without being held accountable to its citizens or offering anything of value in return.
Of course, numerous ethical concerns surround the monopolization of violence, but for I want to focus on on the negotiation of rights for societal benefits.
Similarly, we often surrender our privacy with the promise of protection from criminal threats. However, this bargain becomes unjust and imbalanced when we look at it critically. The map is not the territory as the saying goes, and what are sold as effective measures against crime (on "the map") don't seem like they would be in reality ("the territory"). We risk relinquishing our privacy for nothing of value in return.
_should_ is the main problem I have with this argument. A Monopoly on violence is _never_ fine because there is never a time where we can trust a person or an organization to be completely transparent.