if you leave too much responsibilities to a single individual, even if he has good intentions, it's not gonna end well.
I'm not sure that I agree with that, or that it's even rooted in reality.
I see it as the opposite. Too much decentralization makes reaching a consensus virtually impossible and, at the very least, slows down progress to a snail's pace (which can be good in certain contexts, don't get me wrong). This can be seen with the sloth-like improvements in bitcoin over the last decade (which, again, isn't necessarily a bad thing and, IMO, isn't in bitcoin's case).
Then you have examples like Tesla and Apple and Amazon, and pretty much every fortune 500 company, growing from weeds to riches inside of a decade or two, being lead by small groups of entrepreneurs/ visionaries, if not a single individual.
Yes i see what youre saying. South korea is the exact same case, just on a national level. Under dictatorship we went from farming and fishing to selling millions of smart phones. Im not arguing against the fact that control can give us structure to get started. But we are also talking about 1/1000000000 chance success stories. One right decision from a single individual can make all the difference yes. But is ned the right man to make a fortune 500 from a garage? Or to build a thriving nation from scratch? Or does he need to start being more of a facilitator? 😀