Conclusion:I think the words "based on force" is somewhat disingenuous.Bronson thinks it's obvious that based on force is true.We agree force is a necessary component of the law in the outlying cases
I would argue that a government cant really be defined without force. Its central to what a government actually is. Its the way we distinguish between government and non-government. Governments may use force but non-government are allowed to use force only when the government says so.A monopoly on the use of force then (they can still delegate this authority but it still originates with the government) is really how a state should be defined. Thats how I distinguish between imaginary states (Hawaiian Kingdom) and real states (state of Hawaii). Both believe in themselves, both have written constitutions and supporters, but only one has a monopoly on force, hence its the "real" government, not imaginary/pretend government.
Its why you cant rob from the rich and give to the poor even though it may be a noble cause. Only the state is allowed to engage in violence, and those who dispute this fact will be quickly convinced otherwise (through violence, by the state).