I don't think it's unavoidable. I don't see why you couldn't have a relatively weak government that's otherwise pretty laissez-faire besides taxing the hell out of extreme wealth. And a strong government doesn't have to have extremely powerful individuals. Power can be divided, and representatives are ultimately accountable to the people.
What you're saying basically boils down to: kings are inevitable, might as well choose them by economic success instead of the more old-fashioned approaches. I reject the first part.
You cannot have a "relatively weak government" that "taxes the hell out of the wealthy".
First, if the people can incentivize the government enough to tax the wealthy with outrageous amounts, then those same people will demand regulation on everything whenever something goes wrong. You end up with a poor country this way. Second, the wealthy can just leave or influence the policy to be changed.
Also, the irony is that the US is already one of the best countries when it comes to taxing the wealthy instead of the poor. You don't have a 20-25% VAT that applies to everything you buy. You have a progressive income tax and your payroll tax (that avoids the progressive part) isn't a giant ~30% of gross income. You don't have giant excise taxes on things like gasoline that makes everything more expensive (including food). You also generally don't have punitive taxes on things that poor people buy a lot of, like sodas and similar.
The list above are things that are done by (a lot of) European countries. Our "welfare states" don't exist because rich people pay a large share, it's because everyone does.
What you're saying basically boils down to: kings are inevitable, might as well choose them by economic success instead of the more old-fashioned approaches. I reject the first part.