I'll deal with these two, then hopefully we can leave them aside
State as a monopolist of violence
Now, if the curlicue we need to go through here is the anarchists' lens - narrow lens - that the government is pro-violence...etc...that's a big loop-de-loop. But, more relevantly: that's an incredibly narrow lens, and utterly biased by your politics. Who should have funded it? Nobody? That's not really what you are arguing, I don't think - but you are arguing that government shouldn't really exist in the first place. Way off-course for this debate, as a legit point.
The position that I stated is actually the most widely accepted definition of a state, and the form in which I generally use it, it's very much drawing on Max Weber, the founder of modern sociology's definition.
The most commonly used definition is
Max Weber's,
Link Removed which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a
centralized government that maintains a
monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.
Link Removed Link Removed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)
Weber's view was neither new nor unusual, just of the top of my head, it was the position of the Greek and later Roman Stoic philosophers, most notably Cicero.
It was the position of St Augustine of Hippo, and from him, it became the basic position of the Church of Rome
Saint Augustine—The City of God
Book IV, Chapter 4.
How Like Kingdoms Without Justice are to Robberies.
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity.
Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor.
In the bottom paragraph, Augustine is quoting Cicero.
It was also the position of Thomas Hobbes, author of "Leviathan", which sets out the usual present day mainstream justification for the state; that without a monopolist of violence, we would be reduced to living in a state of nature, consisting of a war of all upon all, in which human life would be nasty, short and brutish...
State having a vested interest in facilitating and encouraging conflicts
A fairly non controversial classical liberal (it doesn't need to be anarchist) take on the Hobbesian myth, is that while the absence of a state would not magically end all violence*, rulers tend to facilitate conflicts in order to then present and justify themselves as the solution and the peace maker
Obviously not with reference to Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679), but the idea of
divide and rule has been explicit in politics since probably three or four hundred years BC (it's frequently attributed to Philip II of Macedonia), and it makes notable appearances in 16th century essays on statecraft, such as Machiavelli's "The Prince" and de la Boetie's "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude"
Clearly, as ordinary peons, we are not party to the hushed conversations and schemes of the present day power brokers, however we do get occasional indications of how they are likely to be operating. Likewise for the other groups seeking to gain the privileges that come with gaining control of the machinery of state.
In the recent past, Kozac's "And Not a Shot Is Fired"
Dead Link Removed is a manual for stirring dissent in order to subvert a democracy into a socialist one party state - and is based on the (successful from the author's point of view) subversion of post WWII democracy in Czechoslovakia into socialist one party rule. There are also similar descriptions from former KGB agent and defector Yuri Bezmenov / Thomas Schumann
(there should be some interviews with Bezmenov/Shumann up on youtube - originally filmed by the John Birch society (the Birchers were one of the groups purged from the American conservative movement during the takeover by the Buckley-ite pro war and pro foreign military intervention neo-cons. Groups opposed to foreign wars being purged from a major political party is itself a telling indictment of the nature of political power)
Both of Kozac and Shumann/Bezmenov, describe facilitating a
"Strategy of Tension" in which as many conflicts and arguments as possible can be facilitated and stirred within a society - in order that the population will not only wish for protection, they'll actually be (made to appear to be) willing to surrender significant freedoms to (unscrupulous) rulers in the hope of achieving that peace.
Is violence against females the subject of stirring and facilitation as part of a "Strategy of tension"?
From the point of view of social marxists and social justice warriors, I have little doubt that it is - and I think that is spilling into the discussion here
From actors within the state(s)? as far as America and Britain are concerned, yes, and I can pull out some examples over the coming days and weeks if I need to.
Oz? I don't know, I'm not immersed in the Aussie mainstream buzz, but I would strongly suspect that even if it is not an implicit policy of a party or a department, there will be individuals in positions of influence pushing that agenda.
___________________________________
* I guess that we can probably find utopian fantasists in any movement. as far as I'm concerned, an Anarchist society would still have to deal with violent people and criminal acts, and I take Gustave de Molinari's position that provision of security defense and court services are like any other good or service, and ceteris paribus, are provided in better quality, larger quantity and cheaper by competing providers on an unhampered market, than they are by monopoly provision.
Under such an anarchic system, ANY
initiation of force (or theft or fraud)
would be illegal - proportionate defence against such acts would probably be legal, though different communities would almost certainly adopt different positions on what constituted proportionate defence and under what circumstances.
Under the present archist system (using Weber's definition of the state) initiation of force (and theft, and fraud)
is legal, so long as it is done in the name of the state. Defending against such acts is usually illegal.
Probably my favourite utopian is French utopian socialist, Charles Fourier, who describes his socialist utopia in loving detail, including the death of the present moon, the emergence of new types of animals which are the opposite of present day animals (the anti lion and anti whale are examples) and the sea ceasing to be salty and turning instead into lemonade.
