It seems to me to be unnecessary to insist on focusing semi-aggressively where we disagree, especially when I barely even have a developed and informed idea of the best way to go about dismantling the corruption of the US government. I don't know why discussions online so often have to focus on disagreement. Do we both want to tear apart the current system? Yes? That's my idea of the same goal -- not having the exact same plan for what we replace it with. So wouldn't it behoove us to work together to seek the best ways of accomplishing that?

I think it would be good if there were someplace people could go when they want to live in a state of anarchy. But imposing anarchy on people who don't want it isn't freedom, either. Of course everyone in history who topples the government replaces it with what they want, and sometimes that turns out to be worse.

I'm not fully opposed to anarchy because I know far too little about history and political science to talk, but basic logic and certain knowledge tells me that a state of anarchy when you're working with a massive number of people would inevitably result in temporary chaos and civil war followed by the establishment of a government. To wit: mass anarchist communities inevitably fail, and people left to their own devices are inevitably violent. I should say this isn't so much human nature as simply nature. Nature is a violent, unsafe place because each organism is focused on the survival of itself and [generally unwittingly] its species. Existence is selfish. A state of anarchy is a state of nature. I'm sure that since you seem so informed you must be aware that the concept that people were ever nonviolent is a myth.

"Decentralized government" sounds a lot better to me than purely leaving people to their own devices. There must be ways of both checking people's natural propensity for violence and maintaining people's rights to live their lives as they see fit provided that does not impugn upon the rights of others. I think you could hardly say that a society like Denmark's is a horrible thing. The scenario is not simply "government like that of the US" or "no government."

For example, here is a local green party platform:

It seems to me you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. I want massive overhaul and reform, but can you convince me that your way is the only and correct way?

I really would like you to see me more as a curious person who likewise wants the earth and its inhabitants to be as contented as they can be, rather than an opponent.