`"authorities who want ignorant"` this is true. Here is a bonus for you if you love George Carlin.

<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l-o_XCDTyB4" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>

<div class="text-justify">

I think the answer to your question is quite simple, Hans Morgenthau describes it as “the animus dominandi, a lust for power without limits that exists universally as an inner force, an element of the human soul”. John Mearsheimer tried to explain why there are conflicts in international relations by focusing on the structure/architecture (Structural Realism) of it, that there is no higher power that can police the world (theoretically speaking), hence all countries are in a constant fear that other countries may attack them at any given time (The main reason why the League of Nations was a failure). I think Thomas Hobbes describes it very well when he speaks about the stats of nature, and I quote:

<blockquote><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature#Thomas_Hobbes"><sup>Hobbes argued that natural inequalities between humans are not so great as to give anyone clear superiority; and thus all must live in constant fear of loss or violence; so that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called warre; and such a warre as is of every man against every man". In this state, every person has a natural right to do anything one thinks necessary for preserving one's own life, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.</sup></a></blockquote>
<blockquote><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature#Thomas_Hobbes"><sup>Within the state of nature, there is neither personal property nor injustice since there is no law, except for certain natural precepts discovered by reason ("laws of nature"): the first of which is "that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it"; and the second is "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself" . From here, Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into political society and government by mutual contracts. &nbsp;&nbsp;I invite to watch this video of John Mearsheimer speaking about Realism and anarchic system.</sup> &nbsp;</a></blockquote>

The Peace of Westphalia and all the wars that lead to it is one of the great examples why the social contract is an important thing since people must learn to cohabit (different religions, different needs ...), and cohabitation can't happen if there are no contracts between people to sustain peace and safety.

<blockquote><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia"><sup>The Peace of Westphalia established the precedent of peace established by diplomatic congress. A new system of political order arose in central Europe, based upon peaceful coexistence among sovereign states. Inter-state aggression was to be held in check by a balance of power, and a norm was established against interference in another state's domestic affairs. As European influence spread across the globe, these Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.</sup></a></blockquote>

I think that nor total anarchism or control is something to be proud of.  But if I had to choose, I will probably choose the social contract approach. Because at least, people will have the power (theoretically) to alter the nature of the contract by voting on the ideas they deem favorable for them or even make the system they are living under less authoritarian. Anarchic systems open doors to the "state of nature"  Hobbes and  Hans spoke about, which will eventually lead to a primitive form of conflicts that will naturally arise because of human nature.

I invite you to watch this video of John Mearsheimer speaking about Realism and anarchic systems.  He explains the concept better than me.
<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RXllDh6rD18" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>


At the end of the day, I feel it’s more like choosing the lesser of two evils. Far from being a belief.


</div>

Blockchain-based solution?

- Initial *ruler* chooses voting rules
- *Influencers* push the public to vote solutions they desire or they are paid to market (like US *democracy* being a democracy)
- Will electronic chips under the skin of each participant be implanted to ensure each one has one voice only?
- *rules* or *law* will not be enforced; (*say you live in a village and travel to another village 150 miles away; due to human nature, if any problem occurs, in 99% cases you will be found guilty by their local authority*)

I don't think anarchy is any better in general. See tribes in Amazonia, some remnants of state-less regions. They murder members of other tribes without blinking an eye. [Another remnant, Zomia.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECch2g1_6PQ) While partly forced by China, they themselves want to join the state, and live easier lives within advanced civilization.

I don't think stateless countries can exist in the XXI century, as civilization advances. There are simply too many people on Earth and density plays a vital role. Systems undergo self-organization and states win against stateless regions.


EDIT
[Law enforcement](https://youtu.be/qSjhRmEhi7k?t=2332) example in the state-less society.