Yours is an interesting perspective too, I have some difficulty applying the analogy of guns and shooting to the actual Network and the mechanics of this due to lack of tech knowledge. Maybe if I just work through your post mainly keeping to the real world and see how it goes. There are some major differences though, such as no physical borders online, so some things that would work online would not translate/work in the real world. Due to this I may find myself objecting to things on the grounds they wouldn’t work in the real world, when in fact they could online.
I would say that in an ideal world neither govt nor anybody else would have guns. However, we live in a world with borders and the security of the populace from invasion and such is a legitimate concern. It’s interesting that you mentioned property rights earlier because it is quite pertinent to this conversation. Property rights originally stem from whoever uses the land. If we take the UK as an example, the inhabitants can’t defend their borders without working together and paying for an army etc. If an invader was successful, then they would have the property rights – in order to protect our property rights we end up with a representative Govt given the consensus of the majority to raise an army. The army has the guns, directed by the Govt, who in turn are given this right by the population. I don’t see this as an un-balanced situation, it’s not ideal but a needs must situation. I’d say it is only unbalanced if the Govt has guns without the consensus of the populace.

The ideal situation to me would be to do away with Govt functionality/powers insofar as that is possible and de-centralise things as much as possible, bearing in mind what I’ve said, there are certain areas where for practical purposes we need some form of centralised entity. We still need governance even without Govt though. While I’m thinking about it, your argument about representative Govt would also seem to apply to the way the witness system works?
One thing I would change is the way political parties set out their various stalls/manifestos for the population to vote on which one to choose. I would de-centralise this so that the population agree on an agenda then employ a “Govt” to carry out that agenda, along with the ability to sack that Govt for gross misconduct for not carrying out the populations wishes. I would also ensure that all public funds/Govt meetings etc are put on some kind of Blockchain for transparency. This would also be useful for tax purposes…..OH NOES….I mentioned the “T” word…..lol.
I’d say that the idea of a community pot to pay for infrastructure and care of the weak and vulnerable is a good thing. The main objection seems to be that money is spent on things that people don’t want it spent on. Again, if this is de-centralised and everybody given a choice on where to spend it for the good of the community as a whole then I think it’s a good thing.
Having pondered the upvote/downvote/flag situation some more I have come to the conclusion that we do indeed need all 3. The main issue I see now is around conflict resolution and I suggested a Court of peers randomly picked each week. This would work in conjunction with a time delay before rewards are paid. The “accused” could be found algorithmically I think, There would be no central authority and no people in position for more than a week, thereby negating fears of corruption. Users click the “agree to terms” and Bob’s your uncle, you’re covered. Any claims of force being used would be illegitimate as people can decide not to agree in exactly the same way people have the choice to join any society/community or not. Anyway, just my thoughts, cheers.
Edit: The flagging in this model would have no impact whatsoever on a post, it only alerts the community who alert the court. This will make people think twice about flagging.