A major argument against utopian concepts has been made by Popper in his defense of "step by step" reformation of society in comparison with revolutionary transformations. A revolution which completely destroys the previous way of life to start a new society from the scratch is very dangerous. The live of society is too complex. It is not possible to design a complete new society without making errors.
I agree with this argument. Therefore, instead of a radical revolution which destroys the state, I propose a step-by-step transformation. Therefore, this very important criticism of utopian concepts cannot be applied to the anarchistic concept considered here.
Such a step-by-step transformation is possible. What I propose is that the state gives up the monopoly rights. But, first, this can be done in many different steps. Then, even if the state gives up all monopoly rights in a single moment, everything which works continues to work. Monopoly rights are not a requirement for working.
A second transformation is to reject all regulations of economics. But all products which confirm to the actual regulations justified as "consumer protection" obtain the right to label their products as "confirming to the government standards of …".
There will be, again, no immediate consequences: What has been produced before can be produced after, what has been sold before can be sold after. The transformation needs time: Things which are forbidden today first have to be produced.
Another reform is immediate absolute freedom of contract.
But there may be a simple clarification: All contracts which are actually valid remain valid, and all the regulations valid at the time of conclusion of the contracts are considered to be an implicit part of the contract, and, therefore, remain valid.
So nothing changes for actually existing contracts.
In fact, there will be not even an intermediate period which is worse than the actual state, as typical for many revolutions. Of course, if there is change, something may go wrong. But if we assume that the final result is better than today, there is no reason to assume that the intermediate steps of transformation – less than today monopoly rights for the state – is worse.
There is an interesting difference between our proposal and current privatization concepts: The purpose of current privatization is that the state is no longer the owner of some property previously owned by the state. Moreover, the main purpose is to create competition. The methods are sometimes artificial. The monopolist is forced by law to help new competitors. For example, the monopolist should allow the use of its own property for a "fair" price established by law.
Now, such methods to start a competition in a previously monopolized domain are allowed but not required in my concept. All what is required is the removal of legal monopoly rights for the monopolist. If the state remains to be the single owner of the monopolist, is not essential. If new competitors have a real chance on the market or not is not important too. The only important thing is that it is not forbidden to do the same as the monopolist.