My reading of their comment: A piece of paper (or bit in a computer) means nothing if the person who wants to take your property puts a gun in your face.

I think this is a problem with most blockchain solutions. They purport to replace existing societal controls, but depend on them to actual enforce anything. So you are left in the situation where either traditional solutions work so why bother with a blockchain, or traditional solutions aren't working, in which case the blockchain isn't worth the imaginary paper its written on. Either way, the blockchain solution is worthless.

Edit: i commented before i rtfa. Shameful i know. Appearently this is not a blockchain thing. I still think most of my comment applies.

The idea using technology to solve a political issue has never gone well in the long run. Look at the nuclear proliferation issues.

It doesnt have to be violent, can also just be civil disobedience Gandi style and/or create parallel system as the parent article is recommending.

I notice you just blew right past my preferred outcome of negotiation: is it so unlikely that the current elite might negotiate to keep their position rather than lose it in bloodshed?