As far as a monopoly on the legal use of violence goes:

1. I don't see how this makes a big difference in the question of financial solvency. Sure you can use violence to acquire more property (and the threat of violence to renegotiate terms with your creditors), but the amount of property you can acquire this way is bounded, so from an accounting point of view, the ability to do so is merely just another asset. Obviously it makes a big difference in terms of morals, externalities, &c. but at the end of the day, you either have or do not have enough resources to service your debt.

2. From the point of view of the victim, it doesn't really matter if the violence used against them is legal or not, only the extent of their injuries. From the point of view of the aggressor, it doesn't matter if the violence they wield is legal or not, it just matters if they think the consequences will be less than the gain.