It's an idea which can easily be abused by whomever has the most money and who has the most money right now? It's the top 0.1% of society.
So what would change? They'd have a decentralized killing machine? It's an idea which in my opinion will cause more war and conflicts because it will make funding death much cheaper. How does that make people safer? And what force is going to keep it from violating NAP? The goodness of mankind?
Well on the other side of that coin, the weapon can be used against the 0.1% of society, specifically because of its decentralized nature. Therein lies the incentive to avoid violating the NAP. Covering your own ass. And the 0.1% of society has a lot more to lose than the rest of society, especially on the bottom half socio-economically speaking. I'm personally not interested in participating in anything like this, but as a thought exercise it seems to have internal consistency IMO.
Exactly... I am the 0.1% and I read your comment. I have put a contract out on you.
The problem with weapons is they can be turned upon the people who create them. :)