#asknostr does this seem generally correct at the idea level? I've been reading a lot of history from Greece to Japan to early US and it seems wealth is almost universally tied to one's proximity to allied violence and distance from the violence of Foes. I think nothing has changed even in the modern era, though many of us likely think we're not violent or associated with violence. Hopefully #bitcoin can lead us to a future where this isn't as true. 
Discussion
Wealth is created. Creation doesn't happen through violence. Many people conflate wealth and theft. They aren't the same thing. Wealth and violence are only tied so far as property rights are only possible with a legitimate government that prevents violence (theft) among men, and uses violence only in that context and for that end (to retaliate on the victim's behalf, in accordance with law).
For sure, the way I'm defining violence isn't tied specifically to morality or offensive violence vs defensive violence. But if a society or individual starts to create wealth without also creating a well organized allied force of violence then that wealth won't have staying power because a foe with organized violence will eventually take it. I made the graph because I'm visual and struggling with my own morality given its implications (if generally correct). I'm almost saying violence is moral but only if the game it's protecting is "good enough". But then the moral question becomes what game is "good enough" to kill for. I guess people in the military think about this a lot, but it's a new framework for me. Also, as I'm thinking about leaving wealth to my children, if this relationship holds, the more wealth I have to pass on, the more violence is required to back up that wealth. #bitcoin may be the only wealth technology that falls outside this logic? Or maybe the logic itself is flawed.