I'm going with Rumsfeld, Cheney, et-al from their PNAC document on this one.  That is, the most likely end-game is a one-world government.  In that case I would expect the management strategies promulgated by the leadership to be in many ways almost indistinguishable from those employed by the Soviets and other totalitarian regimes, and I would hold near zero hope for anything resembling 'democracy' (though it may well be called that.)  The methods of control used would include austerity, surveillance, anonymous informants, etc.  Basically any structure which keeps individuals separate and suspicious of one another.

In terms of timing, the PNAC folks main thesis was that we have about another 100 years where a multi-polar world is practical and the U.S. may as well sit on the top of the stack during this time.  That strikes me as an adequate estimate.

I personally don't see why we cannot do something like 1) make use of our resources and infrastructure to have a decent life for our citizens, 2) rely on our nuclear capability and MAD for defense, 3) and treat other nations with dignity and respect but mainly butt out of their business and let them deal with their own problems without our 'help'.  This seems to be something of a 'third way' between what the Left and Right sees as the way forward.  Frustrating.

Going back to Bitcoin, this is one of the top reasons I am interested in it.  A viable currency solution which anyone can use and which is robust enough to withstand attack could be a very useful tool for those who wish to resist where whoever takes power wishes to herd us.  I'm drifting back to my position of giving up on Bitcoin except as a template for crypto-currencies to figure out what NOT to do.  We've still not managed to 'mainstream' it yet so all hope is not lost, though, as I see it.