No, because courts can be elected by voting on the blockchain which gives society a way to control them. And voting on the chain (if implemented right) cannot be controlled that easily by a government.

I’m all for the central database. To enter data into it the government will appoint an agency which in turn will appoint individuals after they pass exams or get their license. The said individuals will have to fill in regular reports that had to be somehow processed and analyzed. Also each such individual required to keep records in a safe manner, sometimes this means hiring a security and a compliance officer. At this point it is not clear if the cost of maintaining the agency and all that people is less than automating the agency of the blockchain.

i dont know how to explain this to you but the only thing that blockchains replace are databases like mysql. if, for whatever reason you needed a security and a compliance officer, then you would still need them even if you switch to blockchains. if you needed to file reports using a centralized db, then you would still need them with blockchains.

the only difference between centralized databases and blockchains is the property of trustlessness. everything else can be done much more efficiently by normal databases. if you dont need trustlessness then you dont need blockchains

> i dont know how to explain this to you but the only thing that blockchains replace are databases like mysql.

This is just one half. The other half is blockchain and smart contracts also replace all the people involved in controlling access to a central database. I can imagine a smart contract that would allow me to transfer ownership of my car to you and get paid in return. I cannot imagine an API to a central database that can do the same. One thing you can do to defeat my point is to show how such an API can be built.