My arguments for decentralization are based, in part, on the lack of successful alternatives. Increasing the power of the central government would only provide a specific, strong, center which would act as a lightning rod for corruption. My concern is getting corporations away from exercising power and influence politically through lobbying a far away, top-down political structure. My concern is not with the power and influence corporations have outside of that. Businesses will always try to influence politics. I would argue this would be less damaging in a politically decentralized country or series of countries. In short, bottom-up political structures are far more stable than top-down structures. Smaller states offer the prospect of greater long-term stability than larger ones.
In response to your referencing Marx, Foucault, and Derrida: I see where you’re coming from in your concern with ‘radical individualism.’ My arguments for self-interest and cooperation are based in evolutionary biology, psychology, and then philosophy. People are by nature and necessity focused fist on self-preservation, then cooperation. As far as individualism goes, I would lean more towards a strain going from ancient Stoicism to modern psychology (Peterson). Real individualism, psychologically speaking, would constitute transcending the group (that is, mastering the necessary social obligations of the group and going beyond). Foucault focuses too much on power, far less on how it relates to competence. Moreover, Foucault’s understanding, forged in the mid-twentieth century and practically useless for any period preceding the Enlightenment, seems more likely to reflect popular intellectual trends rather than anything particularly profound.
Rationality and material reality are linked. I tend to focus on an approach based in psychology and neuroscience as a foundation. The rational portion of the brain (associated with the Prefrontal Cortex) is simply the latest development of the frontal lobe. The human brain has much older mammalian and reptilian elements. All of the rational infrastructure is, thus, predicated on far older elements of the brain much more essential to survival. I recognize the use of rationality but also the shortcomings.
Side note: as far as denying global warming goes, I think we can agree that this is, at the very least, problematic if not totally absurd.
Advocates against government intervention have only to make the case that the government is far less competent at dealing with the issue than entrepreneurs (like Boyan Slat), NGOs, or think tanks.