"entirely revokable by decentralized consensus algorithm"
Scary. Why should the community be able to revoke what I have already earned If I should have unpopular opinions?
The problem is that we can NOT be "free from political control" unless we are anonymous, since our reputation, as you note, is based upon community response to our actions. Politics basically comes down to determining who gets what ( in liberty based politics, the people that makes it keeps it).
Anonymity has two problems: maintaining anonymity prevents our past actions from being judged by the community, and can be used to game the reputation system, again as you noted.
From where I'm sitting, ANY system can be abused. It comes down to whether the people that hold the most power (whales, token-holders, what have you) use that power to benefit and protect the community that provides them with the power.
Despite my nitpicking, you have laid out the underlying problems of reputation to be more understandable. I don't think there is a perfect system without weaknesses.
One of the major points of Dan's post was that people don't own their reputation. The individual's reputation belongs to others through their collective views about the individual. For that reason it is not about what you have earned, it is about the right of the community to have a measure of their collective view.
I understood that: I really didn't make myself clear by trying to work in a 3 different points at once. Dan did a great job in explaining the problems involved in any reputation system.
The point that I should have focused on was not that reputation should be immutable after earning a certain level, but that due to the ...ahem...capriciousness...of any given community, those with power in the community need to act nobly to maintain the integrity of the reputation system.
I won't use any names, but we had the specific example of a Steemer that was downvoting newbies out of the gate. Someone with the power to do so that in terms of technical ability and voting weight set up a bot to counter that.
Going back to my "evoke" quote, I was looking at it in terms of taking away a vote-earned token, instead of looking at it in terms of adding negative votes. Either way, you end up with negative rep; it's just that taking away a token earned struck me as wrong. Call it semantics.