I think the US government should be dissolved, yes.  

As for retreating from the world stage.... No, I don't think we should do that.  I think we (the USA, if it must exist) should set a good example for the rest of the world by staying out their business.   We should eliminate all restrictions on the movements of goods, money, and people, whether or not any other countries follow suit.  We'd be better off for it, and many other would soon follow, once they see the economic prosperity that comes from freedom.  

You mention China and their 1984-ish state.  You're right.  They're terrible.  Ironically though, the US, along with the UN, are the leaders in the War is Peace charade.  We literally go to the UN, ask them, and other countries, to wage war in the name of peace. And they almost always agree to do so! We, along with most of the western world (and many other countries) have been doing this constantly since about the end of WWII.  Interestingly, it coincides pretty closely with the start of the UN.  

Oh yeah, you mention "the free world".  Where exactly is this free world that you're talking about?  

Well certainly the freeness I speak of is relative, but you apparently admit you prefer the states to China. So even you see the difference, and it's that difference I'm talking about. Countries with functional democracies are freer than dictatorships, it's not that hard to grasp. Tell me though, do you have a plan to get rid of all those dictators? I'd rather we ask countries to help us to defeat dictators than let them continue to solidify their grip on power while dissolving our own. Your plan is suicidal. Sure, a world where power is dissolved as much as possible would be a more fair one than the one we live in, but to get to that world, we have to start with the one we're in, and your path would have us give up our collective power in the name of "freedom". I maintain that you're horrifically naive if you think that 50 unallied states wouldn't get invaded, and committing the entire continent worth of states to each other's common defense in the form of a federal military is the best way to prevent said 50 states from being invaded piecewise until we all fall to foreign tyrants. But having a federal military without a federal civilian government is asking for a military dictatorship.

Also, if you're in favor of dissolving the federal government, why not the states themselves? I mean the states are in turn a super-government over the towns and cities within them. How small does the government have to be before it's small enough? Why have a government at all in that case? I mean are you truly an anarchist as I suspected? You talk kind of like a libertarian, but an extremist one that would leave a pointless government that might as well be anarchy.

I am an anarchist, at least in theory.  I prefer the label "hardcore libertarian" though, as anarchist makes people think of the clowns in black masks looting and throwing molotov cocktails.  But, yes, in theory, I support dissolution of the the 50 US states.  

I don't have any plan to get rid of dictators.  While I support all efforts to bring about freedom in any and all areas, I'm more worried about casting off the chains that bind me, my friends, and my family.  

I'll take off my Utopian anarchist glasses for a minute, if you'll take off your "government will fix the problems government causes" glasses.  Then we can talk about the very real fact that every time we "defeat" a dictator, the world becomes less free.  People on all sides die, worse scumbags take over, money is spent, freedoms are taken away in the name of security, etc.  So, while it is unfortunate to admit, the reality is that it is not preferable to doing nothing, IMO.  

As for the US states being invaded.... I see no evidence that this is likely to be a common occurrence.  There are tons of small countries all over the world.  Some of them (Monaco, Luxembourg, Iceland come to mind) are very prosperous.  Yet, they stay out of other countries' business, and nobody invades.  And, aside from that, the US states could revert back to something like the US was originally intended to be - united States of America, rather than The United States of America - a defensive alliance.  (I probably wouldn't support this, unless it truly was nothing more than a handshake deal to help out if an invasion happens.)  

Not all governments are the same, if you're too cynical to admit that, then this angle of the conversation is pointless. You seem to be not only against government, but against collective action in any form, which is just mindbogglingly cynical. You have no practical plan to eliminate the dictators of the world, and seem to ignore even recent history. Europe is free because we killed dictators. We directly established dictators on purpose in South America, so obviously that made them less free, but more recently we've helped establish democracies. Tunisia is now a fairly stable democracy, one of very few happy outcomes of the Arab Spring. But your utopianism seems pretty insincere given that you have such an "every man for himself" attitude. You don't care if the world is free, you just want anarchy for yourself and your family, you even admit it. Even I could appreciate a world without government, but I'd still want institutions of collective action. You're too cynical for that. All the small states you mention exist in Europe and the free world. Russia doesn't invade them because they'd have to go through NATO and the European Union. Having alliances like that works and allows for small states like Monaco or Andorra. But you don't care about them really. If the EU, NATO, and UN dissolved tomorrow and Russia invaded Europe, the only thing holding them back from invading Monaco would be that Monaco is full of crazy rich people that could probably buy Russia off by agreeing to pay tributes like with kings in medieval times. Other tiny states like Kosovo would stand no chance. They're in the middle of the Balkans, and from the standpoint of a dictator, Putin would be foolish not to try to conquer the entire Balkans in a world where there was no UN, EU, or NATO to protect them. But again, you don't care, and it shows the emptiness of your ideas and ideals. Why should anyone want to pursue your anarchism when they know that dissolving all governments would just leave them ripe for invasion by the dictators that obviously wouldn't follow suit? They're not as naive as you are, thinking that they can secure anarchy for just themselves, their friends, and their family, when Russia and China are right around the corner and won't care about their desire for freedom. It boils down to this: the only kind of government that can be dissolved is a democracy. If you dissolved every institution with the democratic ability to be dissolved, all that would remain would be dictatorships, and a bunch of disorganized people unable to oppose them. If you want to achieve your anarchic utopia, at the very least wait until all the dictatorships are gone. From there, then you could slowly dissolve larger states into smaller ones. Like how Catalonia wants to separate from Spain. And over enough time, eventually you could dissolve things down to towns and cities. It could be done. But it would need a plan, not naive utopianism and selfish cynicism. If you want anarchy just for yourself and those you personally care about, gather them up and move to an island or start a small community in the wilderness. If you want to be connected to the rest of society though, you'll just have to get used to the fact that most of us like to combine our efforts for the greater good, even if it comes at short term cost to us with no immediate benefit. Alternatively you could start a movement to try to get everyone that thinks like you to move to the same state and take over its government, maybe a large state with few people, whom already hate government, like Wyoming, and just vote to dissolve the state and choose to live in anarchy. The federal government would probably send the military to reestablish order, but then you don't seem to believe in invasions so maybe they just wouldn't for some reason. Of course, this would take collective action and political and civic participation, so I can't see you doing something like that. Guess you're just stuck paying taxes and complaining about it then.

Been saying this for quite a while.

You're just arguing in against a straw man again. At no point did I say I don't want collective action. At no point did I say that I don't care about dictators around the world. I said that I personally do not have a plan to topple dictators,  because my efforts are focused on raining in the United States, state of Virginia, and Fairfax County Governments.  

I specifically stated that I support efforts to cast off dictators anywhere in the world. I want all people to be free from government coercion, and being forced to do what other people think is best for them under penalty of death or caging. At the end of the day, that's what government is. "Do what we say or will stick you in a cage or murder you."   I absolutely do not want any humans to have to deal with that.  

 I'll add one further point.  If you take a look around the world, and throughout world history, at least for the last few thousand years, essentially every major atrocity has been perpetrated by government.  I certainly do not trust government to stop government from doing bad stuff. They have an absolutely abysmal track record of doing so.  The UN is just the most recent rubber stamp that governments have given themselves. Fuck that.

I'm saying that supporting the dissolution of large diplomatic and at least partially democratic institutions leaves you with no viable plan to topple tyrants. The larger and more consolidated a regime, the less likely for it to just collapse in an Arab Spring style event or any sort of revolution. China and Russia, China especially, are approaching dystopian levels of power. You say you support collective action, but don't seem to understand that to counter power on such a grand scale as China will take collective action on a similarly grand scale. Which is why I say that your cynicism to collective action on a global scale, at least to me, speaks to insincerity in your beliefs, since you focus on your local area but support global action that would only leave us defenseless against foreign imperialistic empires that would eventually render your local anarchy a moot point.

Not all major atrocities have been done by governments. Great concentrations of power are the source of all atrocities, because atrocities require great power. The more consolidated the power, the greater the potential to throw all of that power into commiting an atrocity. Organized religion, almost every single major one, has committed atrocities. That isn't government. Corporations have committed atrocities. Small businesses don't because they're too small. Large ones, particularly international ones that can run from stricter laws by going to countries with more corrupt governments, and ones that have monopolized an industry so that consumers can't avoid them easily, are most able to commit atrocities. Corporations aren't governments. Any type of large organization, government or not, can and has commited atrocities. Not all governments commit atrocities though, and not all commit them equally. You can point to governments of great size that commit significantly fewer and less serious atrocities than others, and the key is in how democratized the institutions of that government are. Churches aren't very democratic usually. Corporations are usually extremely undemocratic. Governments at least have the potential to be democratic, and the more democratic it gets, the less the risk of atrocities. Most of our atrocities here in the US, for example, come from the machinations of our deeply undemocratic intelligence institutions, and from lobbying and propaganda from deeply undemocratic corporations, particularly the war industry.

If you want anarchy, it must be achieved from the top down, not the bottom up, because only the collective action of enough smaller powers can defeat a larger power. You focus too much on government, particularly the size of it, when your real enemy is consolidated power in all its forms. If I found a way to erect an institution (or series of institutions) that was perfectly democratic, large enough to fend off governments, and able to make their functions obsolete, I would immediately begin advocating for the dissolution of all governments everywhere, from the global to the local, and then would advocate for that institution and would accept that its scale would be adjusted according to what is democratically wanted. Technology holds some promise in this matter, in the form of blockchain, mesh networks, and more, but we are no where near close to that yet. So for now, I advocate for democratic government, other democratically responsive institutions, and any and all institutions that serve to stave off tyranny in as pragmatically and long term a way as possible, and for the reform of such institutions to become more democratic. Even in the longest of long terms, however, I would never support complete anarchy because it would just lead to power consolidating somewhere, not necessarily a government, and a pope of a global church or a CEO of a global megacorporation are every bit as tyrannical as a dictator of a global government.

It seems to me that you have blinders on.  You're talking about the 1984-like states and how bad they are (and, you're right).  Then you call for an organization of those same states to reign themselves in.  If you truly think that's a reasonable system, with a realistic chance to be a net-positive for humanity, I'd like to have some of the shit you're smoking.  

I chose not to directly address the rest of your comment.  I read it all, but really, it all comes down to the apparent fact that you believe more government is the solution to government-created problems.  If you truly believe the stuff you're saying, then I don't know what to say to you other than this: History has proven you wrong over and over and over again.

The epoch of human rights was partly a development of Enlightenment and British/French Liberalism, and the emergence, later, of American Wilsonian Liberal "New Deal" politics. It became cemented as a global concept after the end of WWII and under the aegis of USA hegemony. USA and the concept of international regulation and administration of human rights is American through and through - and was a necessity in order to signal to the Soviets and their sphere of influence that America is here, and that it is a beacon of hope and the centre of the Free World. Fast forward to 2018, and 1 out of 2 Americans believe human rights are unamerican. As USA turns itself away from the world order it created, other states will start filling these massive gaps of moral, intellectual, and economic influence. It is such a disaster and such a disappointment - that the country who owes it to History to be on the frontline of human rights is now a laggard, and its population largely opposed to the very political and legal legacy their own ancestors created. I wonder those who oppose UNCHR, do they even know their American history or are they "American patriots" in name only?

I have no blinders. You do. You refuse to address the parts of my comment that address your blinders. You seem to be unable to conceive of global collective action being democratic. You seem to be unable to comprehend that there is more than one form of power, besides government, that can restrict your liberty. I even offered you the hypothetical possibility of a future institution built democratically from the ground up using technology rather than laws, but that's either beyond your imagination or you really are against collective action. And you seem to not get that destroying government from the bottom up won't work, because without a sufficiently powerful institution or series of institutions, government or otherwise, you cannot defeat a 1984 state. Your plan is to have no plan and let someone else worry about it because you don't think it will ever affect you.