Frankly that sounds excellent to me. I don't really trust the royalties at the tops of the various old-fashioned hierarchies to which we are subject to have my family's and community's best interests in mind. We're entirely capable of planting gardens and operating life-supporting equipment by ourselves.
I don't particularly trust entrenched interests either, but they still seem better than the alternative. Imagine if the hospital electrical and oxygen grids were made and operated by the electric equivalent of script kiddies who are proud it hasn't fallen over in over 3 days now! Not to mention citywide sewage installations and whatnot.
No one's suggesting that we democratize medical care by expecting everyone to do their own dentistry, or abandon the idea that the people who should do X are the people who are good at/well-trained at X. They're suggesting that we don't need to be beholden to centralized hierarchies for everything—like, for instance, electrical power.
Anarchists and solarpunks alike abhor unjust hierarchies, instead they trust in experts and those with knowledge, not those who "fail upwards".
Pretty sure everyone dislikes 'unjust' hierarchies. The difference is what people think is just or unjust
But it's what the people appear to want.
How are you to tell them that they are wrong?
What is the difference between 'Bias' and editorial/opinion?
And I do not interpret "decentralization" as a abolition of hierarchies or a complete decentralization to the lowest individual level in all cases.
I interpret it as a bias towards making decisions, allocating resources, and wielding power at the lowest level where something can be effectively managed.
With respect to the US political system someone who prefers decentralization might favor abolishing agencies or laws at the federal level in cases where the states can handle those responsibilities themselves. (And similarly avoiding state-level regulation of anything that can be effectively managed at the municipal level.)