[smallnamespace]

> there is a trade-off between organic community and both inclusion and state intervention in private arrangements.

I think this line becomes heavily blurred in a democratic society where laws are authentic expressions of people's preference for how their society should be ordered. The laws surrounding marriage being the obvious prototype.

You can see the proposals to abolish marriage in the wake of the French Revolution as a recognition it is the ultimate intrusion of the state (and Church) into deeply private affairs, but one which we as a society tolerate due to long practice and because we ultimate recognize that the necessary freedom to enter into a binding commitment is more valuable than, say, the freedom to be able to change your mind at any time (modern, unilateral no-fault divorce notwithstanding).

I agree that the way freedom is defined strongly matters and I attacked a bit of a strawman, but one that represents a trend. A naive conception of freedom, where all rules, traditions, and authorities are seen as inherently limiting, ultimately leads to normlessness and anomie.

I'd say that what many modern societies lack are meaningful commitments, freely entered (strong, cohesive communities being one aspect).