That's not the heart of it. Imagine a government just said, "Ok, this blockchain solution is what defines true ownership." Theft would be rampant, but now police reports would be met by, "Sure, it used to be your house, but the blockchain says it's his now, so we're kicking you out. He stole it fair and square."

That hasn't happened because blockchains are a bad match for how people think of ownership.

Also consensus. The thief may think they should get to keep the painting, but if most people don't agree, police or no police they'll have trouble keeping that painting. In that case to keep it they will most likely have to hide it, and then what's even the point?

A notional monopoly on violence is important, but even in a police state it just isn't enough. You must achieve a broad consensus that, even if this isn't good, it's better than the alternative, and if that ceases to be true in the minds of a great many people their alternative is going to assert itself right quick.

>even in a police state it just isn't enough. You must achieve a broad consensus that, even if this isn't good, it's better than the alternative, and if that ceases to be true in the minds of a great many people their alternative is going to assert itself right quick.

You think most people living under an oppressive regime think that there's nothing the government could do to be better? Such a state doesn't need broad consensus that there's no better alternative, it just needs to avoid the consensus that the personal cost of attempting to achieve the better alternative is worth it. That's where the monopoly on violence really helps.

I think we're on the same wavelength, but perhaps I didn't explain myself very well.

No, it comes down to people cooperating and agreeing on stuff.