Even Rome would elect a dictator when there was a large enough threat, then some guy said F your republic its an empire now

I think it's worse than that. Democracy provides cover to the people in charge. They get to say it's the will of the people, and if you don't like it you get a chance every 4 years to get someone better in there. It gives the people an illusion of having a say. So it reduces the odds of a revolution.

When a democracy has a way to bypass due process, as is the case with "Executive Orders" in the US, then I'd say there's little distinction between a democracy and a dictatorship.

I believe it's mainly a problem of size, scope and options.

The closer we are to a world government, the worse the central planning and its violations against free agency and variability.

The more decentralized our world is, the less it matters how a small jurisdiction is governed. If jurisdictions were small enough with options to vote with your feet, the exact system of governance would matter less.

It seems that Bitcoin will play a significant role in guiding the world toward a scenario where world governance is thwarted, toward decentralization instead.

In a free world we would vote with our feet for jurisdictions that have acceptable policies, be they republics, democracies, monarchies or despotic. A small republic, monarchic or despotic liberty-protecting constitution might be the best place for long-term settlement.