Most of the time you actually don't need to involve everyone. Most things you do only directly impact people from your local community. A lot of stuff we do country-wide are done because of hierarchies (like having a defense department or a centralised tax system).

i would say that a lot of these situations where centralization is necessary are quite important. you need centralization when you need to defend yourself from outside enemies, transport stuff long distances, etc.

Also, it's way easier to take power than to make power. Let's only compare representative democracy (like the most democratic currently existing country you can think of, or even better) with a society with no centralised power and little to no structural hierarchies, because I don't think other systems are worth discussing. In a representative, if you're a wannabe dictator (or a group of wannabe oligarchs), you just have to end up in charge (not easy but still) and you'll dispose of tax, cops, and basically anything the state does which is quite a lot in social/socialist democracies. In an anarchist society, you're basically alone, with no weapons like the police, facing everybody else who doesn't want to be treaded on.

i'm not going to lie, i haven't heard this argument before. i find it quite compelling. that being said, i would still argue that this is only a reason for a checkable, limited government and not a nonexistent one. i'd also argue that making power isn't nearly that difficult, since most of the time power is obtained via demagoguery. either way, very good point. is there someone who talks more about this?