> A government is an organization
explicit, implicit, loose, tight, chartered, unchartered, natural?
> granted
by whom, to whom, under what authority, given by what, enforced by what and applicable to what and whom
> a monopoly (or oligopoly)
determined and defined by whom? enforced by whom?
> on the legitimate
same question
> use of
arbitrary, restrained, indefinite, transparent, accountable, proportionate? what are we talking about here?
> force
define force. is it physical force? psychological? threats? persuasion? What about the physical force in the seizing of property?
> in a designated
defined by whom? universally acknowledged? how? by what mechanism? where?
> geographic
physical? virtual? what types of legal fictions?
> area
contiguous? porous? uniform in space and in time?
I can use that and make it apply to just about anything by answering those questions differently. That's why it's utterly arbitrary.
I've read your authors - they use superficial theoretical chalkboard constructed non-realities to scaffold up their taxonomies. It's not real.
That's why this style of libertarianism has exactly zero agreed upon historical examples. Because they aren't describing reality. Their supposedly "concrete" definitions conveniently move and morph based on the context.
The liberals look at europe and say "yeah, that's pretty much what we mean"
The socialists look at cuba, ussr, and china and say "well, ok, we want things to be less brutal, but ok, yes this matches our definition (shameface)"
The anarchist look at the paris commune of 1871, the Seattle general strike of 1919, occupy wall street, etc and say "yes, this is what we mean".
The (honest) conservatives look at the middle east and turkey and say "yes, this is what we want, only with a different religion and more equality of opportunity"
But the libertarians are just there with their chalkboard because there is no agreed reality that undergirds it. The largest consensus I've found is Friedman's "The Miracle of Chile", which took place under a literal dictatorship, but because their terms are arbitrarily defined, this isn't actually a problem. A military police state that seized people in their sleep and rolled tanks through the street somehow gets shoe-horned into the examples section ... that's how free-floating the categories are.
There's a different form of libertarianism that doesn't have such issues: "When a choice need be made, always tend towards individual freedom". This one, although not free from issues, can't fall victim to the deck-stacking category dance and purely arbitrary construction of the force/monopoly/government style.