> Finally, when you think about the governing mechanics that would be used to achieve anti-bigness, you see that it inevitably relies upon collective democratic institutions — namely the state — to dig in and basically micromanage the economy in order to make sure everything stays small. The charm of decentralization and rule of none/self-rule is thus an artifice being built on top of an iron-fisted centralized state that must constantly quash things on behalf of the small proprietors. This is not a problem in and of itself, but at the point at which you are relying upon a democratic central state to do things, you are relying upon the very collectivism — namely the support of the electorate — that anti-bigness is supposed to provide refuge from, relative to socialism.
This might sound convincing in the abstract, but if you consider a concrete "anti-bigness" policy, such as fixed book prices[1], which protect small book stores, it falls apart. Is there really no difference between such a policy, and the socialist alternative - bookstores run by the government? After all, in both cases, we are relying on "the very collectivism — namely the support of the electorate — that anti-bigness is supposed to provide refuge from".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_book_price