My first ever post/comment on Steemit! We agree more than disagree. I think that prohibition undermines the monopoly on violence a government has, which is why it increases violence in my opinion. A government that has a monopoly on violence does not justify its right to have a monopoly in the selling or not selling of a good — though I think it can be beneficial for regulation and consumer protection. Monopoly on violence does not mean that it can use violence for any use, only that no one else may use violence without government authorization. Self-defense? Government preemptively says citizens are authorized. Someone cheated you or killed your brother? Hold on... let us deal with that, give us the facts and we'll take care of it.

While we may have universal codes as a result our common evolution they are not applied universally across all people, this was a feature of our morality. So... two groups could universally believe they have the exclusive right to sell their good in their area but disagree on the area and both feel justified in violence against the other. Without a Leviathan to settle their differences they are left to figure it out on their own and the stronger or faster wins through violence.

I'm a fan the Hobbesian Leviathan concept and though I think government is the best representation of it now, I'm hopeful that technology will outperform government in this role.