As a counter to this, humans have been doing small groups more or less effectively for... well forever. There are certain controls built into small groups that

As a counter to this, humans have been doing small groups more or less effectively for... well forever. There are certain controls built into small groups that aren't at state scale: * stronger pressure to fit the ruleset/norms * stronger "altruistic" motives - people within the group getting the group ahead is a stronger drive in small groups than at a state level (generally as a trend, yes there are counter examples) * more people, in a smaller group, the members are all people, and you know them, compared to at a state level, where most people are not actual people, but 'others' (again general trend, also, other is a specific term, look it up). * small groups are more constrained geographically. They can only exclusively occupy small spaces, or must be interspersed geographically with other groups. This necessitates certain considerations states don't have for the 'nuclear' option - e.g. sure we could nuke them, and kill all our crops and kids too, that might be dumb. I'm not saying this is a full counter, and renders the stuff you are saying incorrect, nor am I suggesting a full anarchist solution to the future. I just am pointing out that there is some balances to the problem you present. I see the points I mentioned above as bringing less state authoritarianism, and a general aggregate good for the majority of people as small groups have the ability to affect change for themselves. Of course, some of the concerns you bring up are very scary and very real. The trick for us (humanity) is to find a sane balance and strike it.