Can you elaborate?
Discussion
the monopoly on violence is only possible because the military institutions are funded by an infinite amount of unbacked money. If bitcoin is the only money people want to be paid in (see romans only wanting true gold) then the military institutions will need to create value for their country otherwise there will not be enough money to fund them (no one will want to pay bitcoin for a wasted institution)
...so when bitcoin is ubiquitous then there may still be security forces but they will be paid for a specific service and the concept of the standing army will disappear because it is too expensive.
if taxation is only possible because of a "monopoly on violence" and the monopoly on violence is only possible because of standing armies and standing armies are essentially impossible to employ because they are a too expensive then the monopoly on violence dissapears and there is "distributed violence" where anyone with resources can hire a private security force
Thanks for elaborating! Yes, and these private armies will then establish spheres of influence, and proceed with taxation in their spheres of influence where they will have monopoly on violence.
We’ve been there, it’s called feudalism.
why would they hold a monopoly on violence? they would make manufacturing of weapons worldwide illegal?
No of course. Just because they’d be stronger within their domain. A peasant in the Middle Ages could stab a knight with a pitchfork, the other knights would come after him, kill him, rape his wife, and sell his kids.
That’s how it always plays out when you have armed groups of people around. Someone always ends up holding the monopoly on violence within some area/domain.