> the more control the civilization needs over said individuals, in order to protect itself from any of such individuals going rogue and using their power destructively

There's an implicit assumption here that people could not be educated or conditioned to tolerate such risks so they could have their liberty, and therefore stricter oversight will always occur. That might be true, but it wasn't always true, particularly in the US, so we should acknowledge this possibility.

These days this conflict is seen in the gun control issue: one side is OK with higher death rate from guns to enjoy those liberties, and the other wants a more authoritarian system for more safety.

Tolerance for such risk would change how society is structured somewhat too. Probably less concentrated populations, and more independent and local governance to mitigate the possibility of massive loss of life. Centralization has efficiency advantages though, but with the internet maybe that isn't as much of a concern anymore. I don't see us moving in that direction, but it might be a viable possibility.