Violence or Rational Choice?

Weber argues that obedience is compelled by fear. A state compels obedience by monopolizing the use of legitimate violence. I once thought that this assertion did not apply to certain states and forms of government like the United States. I argued that individuals most likely obeyed because they observed the laws as consistent with rational choice, and thus there was little need for the the government to hold coercive violence. However, in observing my own choices, I believe that the use of legitimate violence is still the foundation for a cohesive state.

If there were no speed limits, would I slow down merely because it is the rational choice? No. Although I understand that speeding increases my chance of death in an accident, I choose to speed because I do not always make the logical choice. On the road, I drive fast because I believe that a quick arrival to my destination is more important than my safety or the safety of others. However, when I separate myself from my specific circumstances, I can consent to the rationality of speed limits. Nonetheless, my will is weak, and I will likely speed again. Thus, I consent to giving legitimate use of violence (or in this case, speeding tickets) to the state so that fear of punishment will compel my obedience.