Mike there's so much going on in that post I do not see the major point.
Govts had police like entities. Lords or land owners had soldiers to enforce ajudication. In western culture, sheriffs.
I think you 've chosen a narrow view of goverance. If focused on police, I think just because you have a system to help govern does not mean you give up your right to self defense. Your arguments about moral duty of police seem strawman. When saying the use of force is allowed only if someone 's rights are being violated -they are talking about
only using force against other people. This is implied and obvious. How police are used in
government I do not see as fundamental to Objectivism.

Insightful, thanks MM.
Some thoughts-
1. Jumping from a tall building
'a person in an irrational state..' Tho' I agree with the concept, there could be some definitional problems.
In the old-country we used to say, "This is a free country, do what you like but do not do it in the road to frighten the horses". Yes this was a while ago, they would not say that now. It is an interesting concept implying that horses (etc.) have rights and should be able to go about their business without interference from drama seekers. It is no big jump from that to justify a regulation that an employer should allow an employee to work without risk from danger, intentional or careless. There is another side, when an employer insists on safety regulations which an employee carelessly or deliberately flouts, then the employment may be terminated, there are instances here where government has protected such employees(!).
2. " geographic monopoly "
So extra-territorial laws and restrictions ruled out.