then it also means that the US government, NATO, or United Nations can also move funds for which they don't have private keys to.
How? If they controlled 2/3+1 of the EOS block producers, would anyone take EOS seriously? They would fork the code and create a new chain without government interference.
Perhaps Bill Gates or Marilyn Monroe could move EOS funds in a strange way.
Not unless they controlled 2/3+1 of the block producers and used that power to modify system contracts or token contracts which would be completely visible and transparent to everyone using EOS which would destroy investor confidence in EOS and cause people to move elsewhere.
great centralized tools
What centralized tools?
Maybe you want a system by design that criminals don't want to use. That's kind of neat.
Yes, that is the intention. Protect life, liberty, property, and justice.
similar to how BTC and ETH are today
But isn't that how ETC and BCC were created? Immutability isn't as simple as what the code allows today. Code (and chains) can be forked.
You say "nerfed" version, but this is by design. This is what EOS has always been. It was created with trust put into the hands of the elected Block Producers by stake-weighted vote. A "robot version" would create forks, just like we've already seen with BTC/BCC and ETH/ETC. Not only that, there would be shadow governments controlling the robots, namely those with commit access to the reference implementation Github repository.
RE: Arbitration Order #2018-06-22-AO-002