Lest I'm misunderstood, I don't disagree with what you say or your synopsis of the development of Bitcoin.
The short Answer to your Question, what does Bitcoin do that other Monetary systems can't? It can spread an idea, "that we do not have to be at the whim of those we elect to carry out the Rights and Services necessary for the Health and Well-being of the People."
The internet itself can spread the idea. Bitcoin is an idea, the internet is the tool used to disseminate it.
Many in this community know the answer: Bitcoin is an agent above morality, it carries out it's monetary principles without judgement, letting it's users decide if they wish to build a New World or Watch The World Burn.
My questions are intended to get people thinking about whether Bitcoin itself is the answer. Let me put it this way. The UK (and the US I believe) is currently running the second series of a TV programme called "Humans". It depicts an alternate present in which most human labour is performed by synthetics. It's a play on the scenario we can expect to see once smart technology really starts to have an impact beyond the so-called 'smart TV'. The strange thing about the series is that the people in it still use fiat: money issued as debt that has to be earned. Who's earning it though? It could be argued that people are sending their synthetics out into the workplace to 'earn' money for them, but can you think of a more ridiculous and surreal scenario than 'employing' a computer to 'earn' on your behalf? At this level of abstraction, the process of earning money becomes nothing more than a simulation.
What I mean by this is that we have created an artificial link in our heads between performing a function in society and earning money. As mentioned above, millions of people create goods and offer services just because they can. There is no fixed link between working and earning. So why would we need (or indeed want) to run a simulation predicated on computers earning money for us? Imagine you're a fisherman with a 'smart boat' that can go out to sea all by itself and bring in nets full of fish. Imagine that most other industries operate on a similar basis. What would you 'charge' people for your fish? Does it make any sense whatsoever to conceptualise your 'customer' as a 'debtor' who 'owes you' for your fish? If they had no money then would you tell your customers to 'employ' their own 'smart' machine to 'earn' money on their behalf so that they can 'pay you back'?
This is why I say we need to reconceptualise what money is. The logic of all existing monetary systems breaks down under these scenarios. The illusion can only be maintained by creating another even more ridiculous illusion, whereby computers are 'employed' to 'earn' on our behalf. The series I refer to above isn't science-fiction. It doesn't present us with a theoretical vision future of the future - it actually depicts the present. The 'future' is already here, but people do not see it because people do not think about and comprehend the time we're living in. Conceptually, people's heads are still somewhere in the 1970s and they address the digital revolution using terms, methods, and frames of reference that belong to the old analogue age. Some people are so far behind they even think electronic cash is a new idea.
"The first widely used service for wire transfers was launched by Western Union in 1872 on its existing telegraph network. Using passwords and code books, a telegraph operator in one office could "wire" money that had been paid to that office by the sending customer to another telegraph office to be paid out to the receiving customer. By 1877 the service was used to transfer almost $2.5 million each year."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_transfer#HistoryHS