LH, just because I don't agree, doesn't mean that I don't listen. The problem, as I see it, is that there is little or no local autonomy because the locals gave it up; they exchanged freedom for security. They allowed the central Govt. to take over things that THEY should have been doing, generally in an effort to save money which they then spent on grandiose projects that served little useful function. No more money and now the Fed administers your utilities.
Of course you can have small groups within any large group but it becomes increasingly difficult in a technologically advanced society to kep those small groups even moderately discreet. There must, of course, be some inter-group contact, but if members owe fealty to more than one group, all sorts of conflicts crop up.
While I don't like large corporations much myself -havibg worked for on for 26 years- I can see where they do have some value. Would we have computers and the internet without companies like Microsoft and IBM? I don't think so. While small-time capitalism is good, how do you keep a Carnagie or a Perot or a Gates from expanding his holdings and forming a monopoly. It takes a strong central Govt. to do that and there goes your local autonomy down the tubes.
I think that you and I probably want the same things in the end, but disagree as to the means.

troll