I think every form of centralised governance or establishment is archaic and not suitable to usher humanity into the future or even sustain our current infrastructure. Unfortunately, many people do not see this, mainly because they've been brainwashed or conditioned to think like infants irrespective of how much knowledge they possess, thanks to the centralised establishment. They need to propagate this narrative and continue to do so because it is the single and most important thing to their survival.
The easy route isn't always the best route
Throughout history, humanity has sort out comfort(ease) and safety. The opposite of this is full-blown anarchy. Chances are we might not have gotten this far without the peace, however, I think it is time we revisit this social contract that has enabled humanity to achieve this much in such a short time. What binds us together is not only exploitive but incapable of maintaining our societies.
Behind the ideas of peace and safety is the demand by centralised forces for the masses to willfully give up control. This is well depicted in the series Silo, where people are afraid to go outside because of what they've been told or shown most of which is a lie.
To be fair many people are willing to keep the peace because the cost of control is enormous. No man wants to be responsible for their security. People want time for leisure and other seemingly deeper pursuits. However, what this does is essential is create invisible bars and parameters around people, and these unseen barriers keep sinking with each passing day.
One example of how these invincible hands and parameters control our lives can be seen in the supposed free market. Ideally, the free market is controlled by demand and surplus, however, we've how the market is controlled by the government. This is often done through policies made for the few to fair a few.
One of the basic terms in this social contract with the people and the government is that it acts in the interest of the collective. However, we have seen repeatedly how this is not the case. The idea of what's good for the people has been loosely defined and keeps changing based on the whips and caprices of the political elites.
With the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I will say this: They want to silence us all (and 'they' represents every centralised institution). Sadly, there is little we can do (mainly because many are unwilling to criticise the establishment). They are in our houses, pockets, streets, etc. Big Brother is always watching, and you only know when you make enough noise to catch their attention.
Our Hope...
Irrespective of how hopeless it might seem, we still do have hope. Firstly, the powers that be have different ideas and ways they seek to control the populace and they all don't agree (yet). Also, we somehow figured out a way to decentralise money and value exchange which is significant in our fight against tranny. This is why open-source data, decentralised communities and cryptocurrencies are the most important innovations of the 21 century.
Many people do not see the need for decentralised systems, and it might be too late before they realize that it is not just for our collective freedom but also better distribution of wealth. I believe this will become a more important topic in the coming decades as many countries crumble under bad governments.
How do we mitigate populism? How do we ensure that the state/community isn't captured by a few?
It all boils down to the community/people being active participants in the decision-making process based on their contribution to the state and ensuring that the channels by which these decisions are made remain trustless. Open and transparent means of distribution and dissemination of information should also be guaranteed through trustless systems.
I will choose anarchy over tranny. I am willing to take the risk to ensure that we all preserve our freedom. Losing it at the expense of peace isn't worth it because the goalpost keeps shifting every day and eventually we get trapped in our bubble, unable to make the required changes needed for our freedom. Certainly, the idea of peace cannot be centred around the notion that a few need to control the majority. The people do not need protection.
