It's good that you challenge this because it forced me to go back over my steps how I got to this, and I neglected to specify the tradeoff I mentioned originally. The main tradeoff to freedom is security. Unfortunately we need deterrence, also against organized aggression, from within and without and this comes at a cost to freedom. However, us ceding freedom always puts us in a system where we get abused and this won't hold; I can't think of a single example where the abuser ultimately wins - worst case they just die and we move on without their reign of terror. I feel that the overall historic trendline moves towards increasing freedom, not away from it; it's a very subjective observation though and at a very high level: I'm talking centuries, maybe now decennia because things move faster now.

The reason why I think it tips in favor of freedom this time around is because solutions are now truly globally shareable ¹ and self-sufficiency potential is through the roof. We can collaborate without incorporation, and without governance on a global scale now ²; basically what 40 years ago you could maybe achieve with only your neighbors/friends/relatives, today you can achieve with anyone anywhere, if both parties want to or have a need.

The third party doctrine is a blessing in disguise for a Bitcoiner, tho? It underlines not your keys, not your coin. It codifies what bullies can do if relied on third parties and incentivizes solving self-custody and developing other self-sovereign tech. Decentralization is a necessity because of this and "become ungovernable" is more than just a catchy slogan.