A monopoly on violence is a necessary condition for being a state. It is something that is true for states but not other things, and it isn't circular to say they are potentially more dangerous for having that attribute.
I think the parent poster’s idea is that a state is a necessary condition for a nonviolent company. In the absence of a state enforcing trade laws you’d just have companies running their own navies and armies to keep the peace, as was the case at times in the past.