RE Self interest vs communitarianism
I think we can think through both of these perspectives at the same time and rationally assess where they are aligned and where they conflict. I'm not enough across the finer points of the NZ system to properly argue it's merits or demerits and i'm sure it has both as does the current system.
For example: Along with the benefits there are of course problems with the"no-fault" concept in that it removes accountability from the negligent party and as such the incentive to avoid negligence is undermined. In the case of ACC that incentive is transferred instead to the state. There are both benefits and costs to this that would be contextual to the circumstances of each issue. In cases where there is systemic and widespread negligence then ACC may result in a more efficient resolution however in cases where the issue is esoteric, or specific, then the issue is likely to remain unresolved. Individualised accountability resolves the latter issue as well as the former since we expect people to operate through rational self interest - though systemic issues are dealt with less directly than under a system of "collectivised accountability", the issues are still dealt with.
If you are taking an anti-corporatist stance you might also consider that removal of accountability for negligence (no-fault) in fact does serve corporate interests - simply a different set of corporate interests. In cases where a company is the negligent party the injured party may be compensated but there is no compunction for the company to fix the problem unless required to do so by the government. There is a large amount of bureaucracy getting from point A (identification of a problem) to point B (government passing a law to resolve the problem) and we may in fact never get there. Additionally centralising authority for resolving these issues makes the process subject to corruption and hijacking by vested interests with outsized influence on policy makers - such as corporate lobby groups.
Even if we are to hypothetically accept that something like the ACC is universally in the public interest (or at least that it is better on balance) then is still nothing wrong with seeing this as conflicting with our self interest, though it may change how we respond.
So kind of a pragmatic minarchist? I have quite a bit of overlap on this front though I suspect we differ greatly in specifics. I'll admit that I haven't studied Bookchin or Foucault though I am certainly aware of the influence Foucault has had on post modernists in academia. I take issue with the way some of these ideas are being applied (though not necessarily the ideas themselves). Here's a famous paper by British professor of philosophy Nicholas Shackel that critiques Foucault's book “Truth and Power" (1972) and post modernists in general:
https://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf
Even if you disagree with Shackel's critique of Foucault specifically it's still worth a read as it coins the term "motte and bailey doctrines" which is a pretty useful concept to be across and guard against. (it's a type of bad faith debate/argumentation tactic that relies on equivocation)
Many of his followers are ideologues that have a view of the nature of power that is oversimplified and out of date having said that I doubt that this is an issue with Foucault per se rather its likely to be an issue with many of the groups that have appropriated his ideas. That being said we're bordering on some extremely controversial subjects that are off topic so should probably leave sleeping dogs lie.
(20min delay)