Insofar as panpherohoplocracy reduces the cost of defense and the cost of maintaining order it is a good strategy. Where people’s time preferences are so high that they cannot handle the responsibility of owning weapons, panpherohoplocracy enables low to high intensity tribal warfare panpherohoplocracy is bad. That is to say it is of the advantage of the people to be able to defend themselves but that advantage is lost if the government needs a technological advantage to keep tribal warfare in check. Polar opposite is a people who’s time preference is so low that they are more likely to kill themselves than defend themselves (whether or not such a population exits is questionable). Over all I have a very positive view of panpherohoplocracy but would restrain myself from offering it as a universal solution. There are no universal solutions every solution must keep in mind the inputs (people, culture, history etc.). There are clearly instances where panpherohoplocracy is inappropriate. But that is not the mark of a bad system just a reality humans have to deal with. Panpherohoplocracy seems like a great system for societies with enough social capital.
Below are couple of articles from Vulture of Critique discussing panpherohoplocracy.