The military man is someone who benefits from using violence. The state is the group of people hiring the military man.
So, if we concede, that the military man is someone who benefits from violence, we also have to concede that the state benefits from violence, otherwise it wouldn't have payed the military man to create it.
So, the state is a group of people that benefits from violence.
Question: is a group that benefits from X taking place less or more likely to create X happening?
Question: is a group that benefits from violence really the entity whe should put in charge of violence?
What if there were other groups who could protect us, because that's what we want from a military, right? But who did NOT benefit from violence happening? Who would in fact turn a loss if it were to occur? And who would therefore work tirelessly to PREVENT it from happening?