My ranking would be zero best, 'many' (well preferably everyone) in middle, and then one being worst. Many may be 'civil war' (or distributed violence) but one is unilateral violence. I pick being ability to fight back over unilateral violence every time*.

It's also worth mentioning that '0' and 'many' are the only options that offer even the possibility of uniformly distributed means of violence. IMO the population has highest security when violence is not monopolized by a privileged elite such as police officers and armed forces.

>society is propped up by future expectations. This includes the value of government money.

Then I think Ludwig has a point here. It's constantly touted that USD value is propped up in part because you have to pay taxes with it and backed by Nobel Peace Prize winners who bomb kids with drones from 5000 miles away. Thinking "hey some powerful people will toss me in a cage if I don't get this paper" may create real economic incentives but maybe we should be thinking about which incentives we want to be creating.

*Note: I fought in the civil war (YPG) in Syria. People I were with were much freer under civil war than when Assad controlled country.