This is where I agree with you.

I don't think Bitcoin extinguishes the state because although it is a monetary property right independent of coercion and violence, virtually independent, let's say,

not 100%. We're still left with all the physical property rights and our own physical

person and like we need physical security and physical reality.

So my general thought here, somewhat inspired by Hoppe's democracy, the god that failed,

is that Bitcoin ends up being this economic limiting factor on state overgrowth, let's say.

So by increasing the ratio of resistant to non-resistant actors, it's shrinking the tax base,

which would lead to a shrinking of the state, possibly even a fragmentation of nation-states.

And maybe we end up, like in the distant long game here, back in a more monarchical type governance model, where the tax

base supports a more localized, more regionalized body of governance, a government,

free private city, whatever you want to call it, that owns that property

by virtue of its defending it, right? It's actually physically secure at a territory.

And then market actors just freely pay, you know, they negotiate openly with that monarch

to live in that city or that jurisdiction,

whatever it's called, paying in Bitcoin, you know, so you end up with everyone owning Bitcoin

and kind of renting everything else from these monarchs in my hypothetical model here.

I think that's a plausible stepping stone in the probably not so distant future.

Is it going to be a stable environment?

That's a whole other question, right?

Like, you know, if we would have these kind of city states and monarchs, what would the trend be?

Would the trend be ever further fracturing? And are we then not end up with a bunch of sovereign individuals?

Or is the trend further centralization and a further white-shed belief of authority

...