Most of us would agree that what @brentsanders outlines in the post you reference is the most desirable "form of governance". A state where freedom is constrained by responsibility and responsibility is afforded by freedom.
For such a state to exist (physically or mentally) a critical mass must be achieved AND sustained. By critical mass I mean that a sufficient number of individuals must commit to the ideal that it becomes self sustaining. Such states have been achieved in small communities but historically have failed to be sustained for a variety of reasons. If either the quality or quantity of "fuel" diminishes the critical mass is lost.
While there is always a risk from within the community of losing critical mass the greater risk is external. We might create the perfect state and be living in bliss until a larger, more powerful group decides we have resources they want. And owing to such selfishness history then repeats, again.
As thrashed in the comments of the referenced post the biggest issue is achieving critical mass on a global scale. If all 7+ billion of us were on board it seems there would be no problem. I don't see critical mass being achieved on THAT scale without external "help"! Maybe I'm lacking in vision for my fellow humans?
I agree I kind of stop at some point and I even thought today it would probably be easier to fix the current "boat" than to build a new one, but who knows, I'd like to trust the fellow humans, but we are also quite limited in out scope of sight, not to mention we like to spend time in our own little box of a world ...
You've read the whole thing before me I couldn't finish the whole comment section but the elaboration there does a great job to outline potential shortcomings, basically what you have given as a example was framed analogously by @rocking-dave
Yes there is that recurring theme in history, trust being broken, alliances backstabbed, whole nations swept under the rug of history