Centralization of all sociocultural, socioeconomic, and sociopolitical forces results in a system that is one death away from chaos.
You brought the post full circle here. Quite interesting. And relevant to cryptos! In fact, as I was reading, and contemplating the argument that the royals had to go because true meritocracy could not flourish with them - but then I was thinking, who's to assure us that the government doesn't similarly abuse its role and become a new type of inherited royalty, only it's parties and money instead of blood? And so I was wondering whether some kind of AI could maybe rule better, because it would be based on clear, rational, and transparent rules. When the power to abuse a position exists, it will be abused, even if the current emperor/president/whatever is great, still the future emperor might not be. But with AI you don't face that problem. AI is immortal. It changes only when you want it to. It can't cheat cos the code won't let it. And it's transparent so everyone can check it. It won't make promises on the campaign trail that it won't keep: whatever code was voted will be applied, unless the voters themselves change their minds.
Basically, I wonder whether (human-ruled, not machine-learning) AI could circumvent the arguments you've presented.
The modern Western political structures were designed, initially, with 18th century mechanical perspective. The so-called separation of powers was a crude attempt to industrialize decision-making process. Much of "enlightenment" sociopolitical institutions are mechanization of social functions of guild/class apparatus. Whether the sociocultural shift from human decisions towards system decision is benefit or hazard is quite complex to decypher.
I think that many of the discontented youths and much of their desire for anarchy stems from being ruled by machines/systems and being turned into cogs within the organization of sociopolitical institutions. Western desire for "individuality" seems fundamentally incompatible with systems, institutions, and mechanical operations. It may be that uniformity demanded from mechanical institutions, populated by men who hold individuality in primacy, create recurrent systematic problems.
Though evolution of sociopolitical decision process from 18th century industrial machine to 21st century AI algorithm may be logical, the irrationality of men will likely prevent or hamper such trajectory. As Gibbon once observed that perversity of men results in their preferring misrule by their own over well-governed polity under a foreign power, so too, humans will prefer misery under fallible, corrupt men over potential good government under a machine. Besides, it will be fallible men who will program the AI governing algorithm, which will result in a fallible product.