It's not the government vs. a bunch of fringe individuals at this point.
But I'm saying that crypto is built on the stability and infrastructure that was created by fairly well-run and well-intentioned centralized govs etc.
That's a trivially true statement for anything that exists at all.
200 years ago you could have said "democracy is built on the infrastructure that was created by monarchies". Ok. So what? That doesn't ipso facto delegitimize the potential of democracy as a viable alternative to monarchy, and history would have proven you wrong.
Democracy is self-sustaining. Crypto is not self-sustaining, it requires institutions to be able to exist and provide the stability and infrastructure for it to exist.
Crypto detracts from gov/institutions because it enables individual actors to hold on to "their" wealth more easily and evade paying back into the system that allows the wealth to thrive in the beginning.
Your simplistic argument is ignoring the negatives of purely "individual actors"
Let's give a concrete example. Say it takes $10M to house the homeless in SF. One marc benioff (or, better yet, a few + tens of thousands of individuals, but not necessarily all) can step up and cover the cost and the rest of the greedy billionaires in SF can do what they want. Whereas if only the city takes care of it, then you could be hosed.
By its very nature if you want robust social services, you should build a voluntary system because that's not going to have a single point of failure.
Indeed your statement belies a serious level of projection: you're ignoring the negatives of a state run solution.
Bad times makes things reach a point they cannot be contained anymore, it doesn’t matter how big your backing seemed to be during the good times.