That’s kind of distorted. Government has the monopoly on violence, true, but only to the extent as the law grants it. A prime focus of constitutional law is to set strict limits to and legal recourse against acts of government.
Well, in that case, the same applies to CBDCs, but so far all criticisms of CBDCs assume that the government will use CBDCs as a means of oppression unrestrained by any laws.
Are you saying that it's unlikely that the government might abuse it's power? Look at history.
I'm saying that, if we assume that the government will oppress people (that's the assumption that CBDC critics make), it's silly to assume that it WILL use CBDCs to oppress people, and at the same time assume it WON'T use violence to oppress people.
[redacted]
That sounds completely unacceptable. With CBDC we would be in an even worse situation, that's my point.