Interesting point but I can't say I agree that this is the most meaningful difference. In a physical world where you claim the government has a monopoly of vio

Interesting point but I can't say I agree that this is the most meaningful difference. In a physical world where you claim the government has a monopoly of violence, still bad actors could easily do great harm to me in my day to day interactions. But they don't, it's exceptional. The reason it's exceptional is first of all because people are generally good. Second of all because the risk/return play is very poor. When you rob people on the streets, there's a significant risk of it blowing up in your face. Or to be arrested. You can get away with it a few times, but it hardly ever ends well. Being a bad actor is not very rewarding, regardless of the government's take on violence. Being a bad actor is extremely rewarding in the digital space. The risk is near-zero (if competent) and the returns fantastic. You can easily "rob" thousands of victims in a way you could never pull off in the physical world. It scales much better, at near zero risk. And to make it worse, digitally there's infinite creative ways to scam somebody, many methods would simply not work in the physical world. Have you ever tried to impersonate somebody physically?