Hurray! I finally got you to post. Upvoting to encourage future posting. :)

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

I think we disagree here. Governments do sell many goods, including a monopoly on currency creation. From a "human farming" perspective, every citizen (and their tax-paying abilities) is like a bond for the fiat currency they create out of nothing. They can do this fraudulent activity because they maintain a monopoly on the initiation of force. A study of the history of central banking, I think, supports this. Previously (First and Second banks of the United States), people saw through the scam and fought against it vigorously.

can be beneficial for regulation and consumer protection

Maybe. This is an area I'm really trying to question myself on. I want regulation. I want regulation that actually works. When I see governments involved, often I see people playing with other people's money. They have no skin in the game, so their attempts cause further "unintended consequences" which are obvious to those paying attention. Some of the best tools for consumer protection I've seen are distributed ones which are held accountable by market forces. If they can't provide a good product, they lose influence and revenue. Again though, I'm working to question my views in this area as there are counter examples to consider as well.

I think government authorization is a catch-all for what has, historically, been some really bad behavior (again, see democide). The "we'll take care of it" approach is what concerns me. I hope you're not arguing the current justice system is the best possible system for justice? You and I have talked about the faulty nature of eye-witness testimony and how an appellate court judge makes their decisions more based on how long ago they ate than on facts, logic, and reason according to some studies.

they are not applied universally across all people

Agreed, which also creates a myopic view on my part which I'm hoping to get around in the future with more travel and study.

but disagree on the area

Property conflicts involving land, I agree, are the hardest to determine because no one I've yet seen can come up with a fully justified claim to land that doesn't somewhere in its history have a "might makes right" justification.

stronger or faster wins through violence.

If and only if violence remains an acceptable solution. If someone uses violence, it's also possible the rest of the community could shun them to the point where they can not eat or do commerce because of their actions. There are other methods of regulation besides threats of violent force.

I'm hopeful that technology will outperform government in this role.

Me too. :)

Thanks James, good to see you here. I hope you stay.