I mostly agree with this description of the current western institutions, but I don't agree with the conclusion he came to as to why we accept these institution

I mostly agree with this description of the current western institutions, but I don't agree with the conclusion he came to as to why we accept these institutions. The same way he points out that a human master can disregard their incentives in the interest of their subordinates, they can just as well disregard the interests of their subordinates and even their own incentives for some kind of personal enjoyment. I don't think we picked the greater or the lesser of two evils, I think we picked the more consistent of two evils. If it were possible to plot "good" and "evil" on an axis, and if we were to plot to plot "human masters" and "uncaring system" on this axis, we'd see two bell curves. Maybe the mean of the "uncaring system" is farther towards the "evil" end of the axis, but the curve would have a very sharp peak, while the "human masters" bell curve would be a lot shallower, with a lot of variance. I think we chose the systems we have now, or more correctly, the systems we have now are the way they are (nobody consciously chose them) because we as a society prefer things predictably kinda bad, rather than having the possibility of things being really bad or really good, this is made even worse when the outcome is decided by the whims of a person and not pure chance. At least when the system is predictable, we can plan around the bad parts, and introduce a system of checks and balances in an attempt to shift the mean more towards the "good" side. A benevolent dictator might be better than the best democracy, but a malevolent dictator is way worse than the worst democracy, for the majority of the people at least.