Very true, but the laws of mathematics don't have feelings, desires or empathy. That might be good, except for one thing: we're human and we do. As people, we should want to have the freedom to decide our own fate, not put it in the hands of an alien entity. That entity might be right but it won't be right for us.
This is what I don't understand about your argument: the governance of cryptocurrencies is the same democracy you're advocating elsewhere. The difference is replacing the fallible human element with a set of mathematical rules. Noone is saying the rules cannot change (or altcoins would not exist). The entire purpose of the cryptocurrency experiment is to find rules that everyone will like and aren't based promises from politicians, corporatists, or plutocrats.
I think you're reading too much into what cryptocurrency is. It is simply a somewhat-elegant solution to the problem of building a decentralized, digital cash. That's it. It doesn't try to find new ways to run the economy, although some of its supporters do because that's their politics. It doesn't even prove that this is, indeed, a serious practical problem, but that's what some of its supporters believe.
What you call fallible, others might call "free". For example, I would like to give the government the freedom to quickly devalue the currency in a time of a job crisis. What you're proposing either takes away that freedom altogether, or places a serious bureaucratic burden on the process, so that it might not be feasible. You're basically suggesting a system with an unbreakable bureaucracy which is just about the only thing worse than the current situation. There will be no one to talk to – hey, it's just the algorithm – other than somehow convince a majority of anonymous account holders, with whom you can't bargain because they're unlikely to reveal their true interests.
The difference between us, I think, is this: we both don't like politicians plutocrats and corporations. But you believe that they can be eliminated through some elusive algorithm, while I think society contains within it endless cycles of many concurrent power struggles, and each of us must find their place in it, and fight for the values they believe in, knowing full well that the fight is never truly over.
I do think, though, that almost any imaginable form of society has been thought of at one point or another, and I would suggest that you learn about those atecedents and how they played out. A "society... not based on arbitrary geographical bounds" was the slogan of communism, a beautiful ideal that didn't quite live up to expectations.
Also, I would suggest that if you have revolution in mind, get out more and learn what people really want. I'm not saying that you'll change your mind, but that's how revolutions happen: by organizing lots and lots (and lots) of people.
Please, please learn more about the system you're trying to topple and how it came to be this way (trace the whole process). Not that that would mean success, necessarily. When the communists wanted to established their own world order, not based on national borders, they actually thought about this problem a lot: how the world came to be this way. They even came up with the right answer: all human conflict is a result of an unequal distribution of resources. The only thing they missed (which turned out to be crucial), is that humans, by virtue of their evolutionary wiring, probably, like it that way. So conflict is a result of inequality, but we want inequality. Illogical, but that's what we are. Also, conflict, while brutal, does tend to bring out the creativity in people, which is another thing they missed.
As an observer, I'd love to see a revolution take place ('cause that's cool), but I'd hate it to bring about something worse. So please, think it through, preferably with the help of some history.
Even look at the comments on this page. Someone suggests a loan system; another suggests insurance. And when asked, well, how will the different interests and values of people be managed, you get something like "we'll figure out a way".
Well, that's a legitimate answer, but you can't say "we'll figure out a way" and at the same time call it a "cryptocurrency system". Either you have a system or an outline of one (it can be general, but it must be forward-thinking, and it can't discard politics just like communism couldn't discard psychology – politics is a part of us) or you can play the wingnut game like Glen Beck and talk about FEMA takeovers and other conspiracies, but you can't have it both ways.
Seriously, some of the stuff you were saying in other comments actually made sense, but all you're doing is losing credibility when you go off the deep end and start with the 'fear the machine' nonsense.
Take a deep breath, go get some food or something; you don't have to reply to every single comment.
(...and a considered comment is worth 10 flash responses that haven't been thought out~)