>>6485209
There will be conflicts, certainly. There may be some willing to commit to war.
However, war is kind of expensive and usually more destructive than productive. It only "makes money" because the people who own the concept of it are willing to pay for it. If you take finance out of their hands and return the markets to real, circulated money - then even governments are compelled by the raw laws of math to consider, carefully, what is and is not committing to warfare to pursue.
For "proof" of this - look at almost any multiplayer crafting game. The communities are overwhelmingly cooperative because spending hours building something only to blow it up is either a sport to be done with rules by consenting competitors or a gigantic waste of time and resources.
If the people who built the weapons of war were also in control of when they were deployed, they wouldn't like seeing their hard work destroyed for petty things.
Who is truly the master and who is truly the servant between the king and the builders of his keep? If they were to build weaknesses into it, would he know the difference? If they were to decide his money was no good, who would still be able to live in their profession? Would the knights of the king turn their blades on the makers of his swords and armor?
The forces which could compel such behavior are limited in number and scope. Once disconnected, the power of the king collapses.