All incorrect. In essence you are transposing cause and effect, as well transposing large scale changes from "smaller things grow faster" changes. And the agriculture age required roads for economies-of-scale in commerce thus it was not decentralized. You have numerous errors like that throughout.
Well, this is an interesting subject. Two-wheeled chariots were invented by a "distributed" people, the Andronovo culture in Siberia, about 2000 BC. One of the oldest roads on earth was build in England at about 3800 BC (the Sweet Track) where it is hard to imagine that it was an empire-induced road building operation.
I agree that city pavements occurred first in Ur, which was already a "state" in Mesopotamia. But the idea that you need a *violence monopolist* and a *king* in order to build roads and be able to do agriculture, is the misguided kind of social lie that we have been fed with since we were children. I'm not claiming that you can build a road on your own as an individual. But you can build roads as a community without the need of a king who needs violence to make people obey his orders.
I agree that the "kings' violence" is a solution to the consensus problem which each community needs to solve before doing something, but I don't think that the price of giving all power to an aristocratic elite is necessary to achieve this, which is the basic tenet of statists. I also think that if you are dreaming of a "new economy" (the dematerialized economy you're talking about) before hoping that a distributed society like it was before agriculture, is possible again, you will have to wait for eternity. If you are convinced that one needs a king in order to make food, then we will always need a king (in more modern forms of presidents, parliaments, or whatever aristocratic structure). Because we will never be free of material needs and always be prone to physical violence.