[AmericanChopper]

Macron recently said he was opposed to the entire concept of self defence, after a farmer shot a burglar in his home and was subsequently charged with murder.

After that remark became massively controversial he attempted to walk his statement back and claim that he just meant that he said he was against the presumption of self defence (which seems to imply he supports a presumption of guilt in self defence cases).

https://www.europe1.fr/politique/oppose-a-la-legitime-defens...

Basically every country in the world that has somewhat stable law and order has a history of prosecuting dubious self defence cases. The requirement for the state to have a monopoly on violence might sound edgy, but it’s not a controversial idea, it’s a requirement for being able to enforce the law. Self defence is an almost universally justifiable reason for a person to violate the monopoly, and it’s not hard to understand why government agencies can end up viewing it as an existential threat, not to the country or its people, but to their own institutions.

[zogrodea]

I can corroborate (for any lurkers and onlookers) that the modern state having a monopoly on violence is an often-accepted idea.

For example, this is professor Wael Hallaq of Columbia University describing some defining characteristics of the modern state:

"there are five form-properties possessed by the modern state without which it cannot, at this point in history, be properly conceived. These are:

(1) its constitution as a historical experience that is fairly specific and local;

(2) its sovereignty and the metaphysics to which it has given rise;

(3) its legislative monopoly and the related feature of monopoly over so-called legitimate violence;

(4) its bureaucratic machinery; and

(5) its cultural- hegemonic engagement in the social order, including its production of the national subject"