The market is a self-organizing system. Spontaneous order and voluntary centralization would appear.
State centralization is forced centralization. State centralization limits competition because it sets constraints on every entity within the state. It limits creative arrangements of patterns and limits innovation.
An example of a decentralized system is evolution. Organisms that innovate, or adapt creative traits, are the only ones that may survive.
Decentralization would result in spontaneous centralization. The evolution of the bottom-up processes encourage the most successful bottom-up process to spread on a top-down fashion.
For example, entrepreneurs are competing in a bottom-up process in parallel. If one entrepreneur innovates, the idea would spread on a top-down fashion, where all bottom-up entrepreneurs competing would get the knowledge, in a fast top-down way.
Contrary to the popular belief, decentralization is not anti-centralization. It is pro-centralization. It only opposes the coercive types of centralization. In fact, the more decentralized a system is, the more centralized the system is. This is because decentralization would let the bottom-up processes to compete evolve the best plan for centralization in parallel. Centralization is then voluntary. If the centrlization is ineffective, then the bottom-up agents would voluntarily opt-out. State-enforced monopoly centralization, however, would hinder competition of the optimal centralization standard.
Centralization cannot exist without decentralization. Without decentralization, there would be no innovation, since it hinders parallel bottom-up process to compete and innovate.
State-centralization not just inhibits innovation, but also prohibits the adaptation of already-known innovations. It inhibits efficiency increases that would be adapted by companies. For example, the barriers to entry and patents, products of state-monopoly centralization inhibits the efficiency increases which ultimately lowers the purchasing power of its citizens.
State-communist societies are highly coercively centralized. They inhibit certain kinds of knowledge to be applied. These decrease efficiency, which reduces productivity.
Coercive centralization inhibits the innovation and the application of technology. Agorism is more efficient because it decentralizes which would let entrepreneurs exploit the effieiencies and technologies that are prohibited by the state.
Many economists such as Thomas Malthus argued that humans would eventually be living in subsistence. His argument is flawed, because he avoid the consequences of how technology would improve living. In fact, the lack of efficient technological application is the main reason of how socialism failed. Technology and innovation are very important aspects of living in society, and decentralization makes entrepreneurs to have the incentive to exploit efficiency.