At least the Liberal state

If we could reset the economy a Minarchist State would likely work best

the feudal state wasn't

However because the state has already interfered with the economy if this was done now it would only increase the power of monopiles

I feel like ur just reciting talking points and not tackling the issue of the state itself being a monopoly

The State may have a monopoly on violence but that is necessary, I don't like it but i is necessary

Sup Doom, lit name change

sup, antisemite

For example what if someone steals something and refused to give it back, How does the owner of it get it back without calling on the state to inflict violence on the thief?

You could have a decentralized state

with local power structures

"Facebook in Czechia deletes people's posts that mention Tommy Robinson, outrageous say experts" (Google Translate is pretty decent from the quick check I made): https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/domaci/facebook-maze-prispevky-se-jmenem-tommyho-robinsona/r~f17b1a44b50211e989de0cc47ab5f122/

You would still end up with a central power albeit a smaller central power but a central power nonetheless with a monopoly on violence

They didn't have that before the Enlightenment

In order to have any semblance of order the state needs to have the power to inflict violence

you had local lords

over whom the king only had limited power

and they would be the arbiters of things local

And those local lords had a monopoly on the use of violence in their county

The monopoly of violence is not removed it is just spread to local areas

depends

You are just moving the monopoly around, You are not actually removing it

they may also have had nobles under their control who ALSO had privileges the Lord could not infringe upon

how is it a monopoly if no single body can do everything?

Not to mention you had ecclesiastical Lords

who were also responsible before the Pope

a foreign entity

It is a monopoly in their local area, Its a different type sure, But the result is the same, The government body whether they be many or few having the right to inflict violence

one body might have the right to inflict violence on person a in a given region, but not on person b

So your plan is just to split up the monopoly into local areas?

no, I'm asking you why isn't it your plan is you dislike monopolies and think that competition is a good thing

this clearly encourages competition and is less of a monopoly

(I'm also meming as HARD as I can, if you haven't noticed)

(I tend to do that to lolbertarians)

Monopolies damage the economy, Just look at Fascist Italy for example which is a good example, Mussolini wanted one company to be responsible for one thing which led to their being no innovation since the companies had no competition

Again, regurgitated talking point, not addressing my very serious idea

What is your main idea then?

I'm asking you why are you not ok with decentralizing the state if you dislike monopolies

I am to an extent, I would prefer for the economy to just run itself however there would be times when the government should intervene and the government is better suited to do that if it is not completely decentralised

I support some Decentralisation however the State should still have the power to stop monopolies

why couldn't the intervention be done on a local level, by the local authority so that there can be competing models within the country itself. Surely you are for competition?