Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, in human beings of whom they know nothing.—Voltaire
The State is easily the most destructive and inhumane type of institution with a recorded history. Its genesis is well documented, along with the causes, purposes, and general observed patterns surrounding its existence. The consequences of such intervention by this parasitic institution on society has infected the entire body of humanity, whether or not you or anybody else has felt it directly. It's usually through the various indirect manifestations that one can really see what's going on and to what Voltaire says about doctors is equal to anybody in authority, especially political authority.
Since at least the 18th century, then increasingly so within the subsequent century, all kinds of polemics have been written examining the nature of State versus society. A good amount of these gave a superficial account for purely ideological reasons including authors who cared more about proselytizing than actually brining awareness to the table. The few good ones, or rather those written works which understood the history of ideas and its effects, were well aware of making awareness the priority; to see things as they are, for the sake of disinterested truth was the primary motivation for recording those thoughts into words. That all being said, once you settle yourself with the idea of how the State is the leading institution that zaps anything worthwhile in society, one is faced with the question of to counteract such forces.
The encompassing issue at the root is the problem of general control and the unquestioned assumptions people have with power over others. As I've stated, the occurrence of the State in history is undoubtedly the most egregious example of what happens when people feel the need to control others, but this reaction is ever present in various facets of life, even some which people think is commonplace and could quite possibly still happen if the State went away. The simple fact that animals are seen as products for human consumption by many so-called anarchists validates this claim, although some even argue that the State is responsible and without it humanity would go back to eden living as one with the animal kingdom.
A way to think about increasing autonomy and social power, one can picture flowing through a river—you can go either upstream of downstream, both have their places in a given moment. The downstream method is like trying to strike the root as Thoreau says, diagnosing the obstacles that the State has been using against individuals and the whole of society. The further down you go you'll notice that it's the control of money and economic advantages that is the greatest tool for absolute exploitation, which is ultimately only kept going because the masses are indoctrinated to believe it's done for the common good.
Going upstream on the other hand, means focusing on your immediate and personal sphere, essentially detaching yourself from masses by finding your cultural milieu and becoming superfluous enough so you can become that one improving unit in which Nock says is the only thing an individual can actually do that has any significance to benefit all in the end. Anarchists, libertarians, all the labeled freedom lovers sometimes seem to only focus on the political or economic theory, which is of course good and necessary, though often coming at the expense of broader concerns such as health, art, or spirituality. Perhaps taking a look at other avenues to better oneself, there'll finally be a chance to revert to a more humane life instead of being stuck in the current environment of total control.
