Not necessarily. You are equating competence with malice. Granted a competent and malicious government is more deadly but a competent and non-malicious government is definitely the ideal. An incompetent government is the worst thing, whether for a small or large government.
For an institution whose competence is, at its essence, competence at deciding who to be violent at, I'm not sure the distinction between competence and malice is as wide as you seem to think in this case.
Would you prefer a surgeon operate with proper tools or a rusty mess? Government is going to make policies about how a country is run either way so it would be better to have one that was run well. Incompetence leads to tyranny far more than competence does.
Hell, they'd have bureaucracies entire for each protocol. There would be councils of bureaucrats whose sole jobs would be to decide on the standard principles for mediating between Windows-1252 and ISO-8859-1.
(There already are hundreds of bureaucrats for each protocol, though. I've worked with some of them in a state government, and I've read reports on technology standards generated by EPA bureaucrats whose sole job, as far as I can tell, is to justify why they use a proprietary standard for data transmission - nominally it's not proprietary, but in practice the company that created it intentionally designed it to be impossible for other products to produce or consume, because it was originally intended to be a proprietary format. Their "documentation" is garbage, to boot. I gave that project up, and I basically write parsers of proprietary data standards for a living.)