I think the issue with a 51% attack and trusting the huge mining pools that are in control of Bitcoins security is a protocol issue (but I'm sure you'll correct me whether I'm right or wrong). [/color]
I stand corrected, that issue should be addressed at protocol level.
I'm not even sure what that means. Governments become different things all the time depending on who's elected to office.
You said "Organizations and agencies aren't evil, the people controlling them are evil.", which to my mind means nothing as I think an organisations simply can't exist without people.
Importnant thing, money and military plans, remain unchanged. A country who changed long term plans each time a "party" was swapped out would quickly become vunerable in the global arena. The democratic voting system is a layer on top of "real" government.
a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
In my opinion the word "evil" is about as far as one can go and ought to be saved for those comiting moral crimes (a).
(b) is purely subjective and we all have different thresholds on this.
If I had to choose between who to be locked in a log cabin with between pirate and a mass murderer then I know who I would choose, pirate any day! Sure I may leave the cabin with no loose change in my pockets, but I doubt I would have a scratch on me.
Bitcoin already has plenty of central authority in mining, leadership, development and business leadership. Why not have centralization that can propel it forward.
Yes centralisation is inevitable, and with it can come good, but it will always creep toward corruption, natural selection of behaviour will make it so.