What do you mean by "intrinsic"? The men and women with this monopoly always existed? That's a non-responsive response.
How does creating a monopoly restrict monopolies? How does one oppose monopolies through the use of a monopoly? That's a performative contradiction. Once you resolve the logical conflict of your claim, we can move onto your next question and give you an opportunity to provide evidence for your other claims.
So far I'm getting that your position is, "but without a monopoly, who will prevent monopolies?" Doesn't make logical sense.
You're literally twisting words to avoid dealing with an inherent weakness of anarchy. Roosevelt did not create a monopoly. Even if you twist the meaning of monopoly to include government, it already existed. Even if it did, a monopoly can prevent OTHER monopolies from forming. So you have one "monopoly" if you use your twisted definition, rather than all industries being monopolies. You're avoiding the real issue:
How can anarchy prevent monopolies from forming?
How am I twisting words? The government is a monopoly. Whether he created a monopoly on regulation (which is what he did) or whether he created the monopoly on force in which the monopoly on regulation exists is irrelevant to whether or not using a monopoly to stop monopolies is a performative contradiction.
Again, your position still boils down to, "we need a monopoly to prevent monopolies!" This is logically incoherent especially given that the situation you're referencing didn't happen in anarchistic environment (as evidenced by the rulers who intervened in the market and who set up the monopoly on the circulation of money upon which the market was forced to exist). If your position is that failure to prevent monopoly is an "inherent weakness", statism fails by your own criteria given that it literally means to give a monopoly to people.
You're projecting the weaknesses of your own position onto anarchism and being a hypocrite in the process.
It's twisting words because monopolies are about business, and you're attempting to apply the concept to government.
You've still provided no evidence or arguments that would show anarchy would prevent monopolies. Pointing out that there is ONE monopoly with "statism" does not mean Anarchy provides a better situation, as with Anarchy there would be monopolies of nearly every industry... rather than one government.
Monopolies are impossible to sustain absent government protectionism because absent market competition, there's no way to determine accurate prices. When prices don't accurately express consumer demand in terms of finite supply, supply gets out of whack. Also, when there's no competition, there's no incentive to provide good service or reduce costs lower because there's no competitor who will beat you to to it. In an anarchistic world, any monopoly would draw competition that would effectively end the monopoly.
And it absolutely should be applied to the men and women calling themselves "government" because these men and women are still providing services (roads, schools, emergency response, etc.) without competition, which means they are being inherently inefficient with regard to both quality and price.
So again, how does one prevent people from getting monopolies by giving people a monopoly? That's logically incoherent. What evidence do you have that the men and women calling themselves government should be granted an exception to basic economics just because they force people to pay them instead of relying on good customer service?