The arbiter will be protocols, not coercion through violence.

You don't need a violent monopoly to do enforcement of a protocol. Violent monopolies take over the things people were doing anyway, to give themselves legitimacy. People do the things they want, without coercion, even governing our society. Yes, people like and want governance. They don't want governments. 

Bitcoin has shown us how to develop a consensus and enforce it, without any empowered agency or government. We can see with languages, that we naturally participate and adapt to protocols, without a central arbiter of what is 'English', etc.

The only functional difference between current forms of government will be the centralization of it. Instead of every government function being held by the same small group of powerful people, each protocol will run on the nodes or brains of people actually using it. There would be decentralized governance, divided among many protocols. 

I do agree, that we shouldn't tear down what we have. The protocols to replace them don't exist. We don't want chaos. We want anarchy. 

Anarchy is simply being free to try alternatives, and if they work, being free of the coercion of the existing government. That last part is the trick. How do we try things and keep them, if they work, when the existing governments claim that the only functional system must involve centralization of power in their hands? 

At that point, when we have our alternative, like Bitcoin, we must reject them and fight them. It is inevitable.