Perhaps small community intuitions are actually very good and necessary; perhaps a kind of economics is the best way to organize tens of millions of people; a sensible guess is that somewhere in between, bureaucracy with central planning works best (hundreds to thousands) and markets are messy. Limits on the number of effective direct reports and depth of chains probably puts the upper bound on bureaucracy and overhead plus individuality place lower limits. Meanwhile, many people believe that limits to personal knowledge (~120) put an upper limit on effective small communities. In very large communities, probably markets become the only viable option, despite all sorts of challenges.

The questions of interpenetration, interfaces, and cross-cutting communities are the tests to this model and its applications…

Arguments for solving coordination problems via the price mechanism, and restraining government power by rule of law, separation of powers, constitutional republicanism, etc. are mostly correct IMO, but just too subtle and indirect for a lot of people to grasp. And they certainly go against all the “small community” intuitions with which evolution has endowed all of us to varying degrees. But also query what percentage of the populace determines their political beliefs by reference to logical arguments–I’d guess a very small percentage does that.

I tend to agree with thought except the small-community intuition also increases solid family belief as well. (See Utah, Ross Douthat.) Frankly, does anybody really believe Republicans are Pro-Family right now? Look at Japan right now which literally is decreasing populations which will hinder any promotion of pro-market views.