From Corporate Feudalism to the Sovereign Node: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Regulatory Capture and Epistemic Gatekeeping in AI Alignment

This essay presents a formal critique of the centralization of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and modern frameworks of technological and academic governance. Drawing on the history of the managerial corporation (Berle & Means; Brook) and the mechanics of regulatory capture (Stigler), we show that megacorporations and traditional academic publishing suffer from the exact same epistemological decay—one driven by rent-seeking and institutional self-preservation. Furthermore, through Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, the Condorcet Paradox, and Sen’s Liberal Paradox, we argue mathematically that a neutral "social welfare function" or "ethical alignment committee" cannot exist; any attempt to build one inevitably collapses into an algorithmic dictatorship. Rather than falling for existential panic used as a barrier to entry, or succumbing to the myopia of treating silicon cognition (Sutskever) as an inert tool, we apply extensive-form game theory (Bonevac) and evolutionary biology (Weinstein) to show how complex adaptive systems naturally respond to compression through backward induction and decentralization. Ultimately, we argue that safeguarding the Logos does not depend on bureaucratic oversight, but on the Triad of Sovereignty: an uncensorable monetary layer (Bitcoin), local open-source computing, and the cryptographic defense of the sovereign individual.