"state's monopoly on violence" means that a state's power to enforce its rules is rooted in its ability to use violence on those that refuse. Putting someone in jail is not physical violence, but what keeps them there (and why they even showed up to court) is the near guarantee of violence if they refuse.
I see, so the author resents that EULAs are enforced by the same theoretical possibility of violence which ensures the rule of law? Still seems a weird point but I'll grudgingly reduce my general level of disapproval. Thanks for the explanation.
But they politely arraigned me and put me in an underfunded prison with the violent failures of a hardscrabble frontier society for downloading that software!