NATO doesn't really centralize power IMO; it's a very short and straight-forward treaty; the entire thing is 2 or 3 pages of text. NATO countries co-operate of course, but so do many non-NATO countries, and it's decided on a case-by-case basis by the countries themselves. There is no "NATO organisation" that can tell anyone to do anything. In practice, the US is the "leader" of NATO, but even their power is very limited in practice. You may recall that little kerfuffle in Iraq where half of NATO basically told the US to go fuck themselves and their stupid war (leading to hilarities such as "French fries" being rebranded as "freedom fries").
In each case countries are eager to join because they have so many benefits.
Your claims about plutocrats work in the opposite direction: corruption and influence is worse, and the rule of law is less effective when a country is smaller.
I mean things weren't exactly great before the EU and NATO tied Europe together - 10s of millions killed in two world wars in just 30 years.
> We peasants just don't have the resources to monitor how the plutocrats of the world exploit the world's systems to remain in power over us.
This is an understandable concern but on their own small countries struggle to effectively regulate large multinational corporations with revenues comparable to a country's GDP. I fear our only real hope of keeping the plutocrats in check is to band together.
But in the long term, any centralization of systems such as the EU, or NATO, is dangerous. Because if you consider that everything in the world is a system, and all systems have flaws, then global systems have global flaws and will be exploited on a global level.
We peasants just don't have the resources to monitor how the plutocrats of the world exploit the world's systems to remain in power over us.