Conservationist: "Although I accept 100% that centralized, top-down, planned organization is the vital core of a society, I am interested by how bottom-up (bazaar) organization systems are often more efficient than top-down (cathedral) ones. Sometimes, free markets are better -- for example, in administering public works. Sometimes, socialism is better -- government should own and dispense some means of production, like roads and fissionable materials. The default is that if you don't manage something, it declines to the lowest common denominator, so the exceptions need to be carefully vetted. Even more, they work best in emerging markets where having everyone rush at the problem produces a few recognizable innovators who then become cathedrals on their own (see Apache, again)."
Sometimes, free markets are better -- for example, in administering public works. - free market is based on private property, a public work resolved by free market is first turning it into private property. Public domain is theft on basis of propaganda. If a community considers this square this road this forest etc as free to use for all it's members than why a government to tax them for this? as they arranged, by their local elites, the status of that place or good, they could as well work together or find someone to hire for the job... no need for some third party to be involved. that's how things worked once.
A centralized planned organization is one thing. A (centralized planned) monopolist of organization (by monopolizing protection, and by this any other domain of human subjects under it(...) ) is another thing. For the first may very well be a protection firm but the second is always a form of government.A community may use service of a protection firm that it choses, or other, and change it if they do not do their job. Of course that is if they think they cannot protect themselves. You may know already that a libertarian sees the individual in full right of self protection, meaning the natural right of guarding your life and property. Now, you can easily understand why any government would not be very happy to rule a population that can guard itself...
On "public domain" issue you should understand that any public good or domain etc is taken over by government by simply and in a very democratic (socialistic) way luting private property, using "national", "common" needs argument sustained by "scientific" figures, statistics etc All of them being proven mere lies and completely driven by anything but selfless interests, please consult Mises and Rothbard's works on this. Any move in economy made by the stat cannot be natural and useful, as it has no way to calculate profits, only "great goals" and some ideology (ALWAYS socialistic, be it a nazi state or a democracy or anything in between) to back it up. I agree that there are governments that fail more often then the others and, funny (?) thing, hitler knew maybe more about basic things in economy than many of the chiefs of states nowadays, but these are degrees of failure, couse neither nazi germany nor soviet russia nor democrat usa are exemples of great societies.
The natural way as it once was is based on homesteading, natural elites, uninvented laws (private property), armed population. Any state, any government is against this. Politicians are in no way natural elites, as democracy is in no way natural. Private property is hated by any form of government, no matter as liberal etc it claims to be. Any government sees itself as the final judge and legislator, hence unnatural invention of rules and laws. The far goal of the natural vision on society is a society where all known land and resources (or that we now consider as resources) is privately own. No artificial hierarchies, no "public" domains, no multicultural,democratic,socialistic "society". (no "free" immigration)
Society as organism, as cathedral, and other romantic (oh, pardon, scientific!) metaphors are those that inflict deviance in the views upon society and human life.If society is something that it is to be this when free, not when will of some individual, be it a great greek philosopher, an afro american president, some crazy russian or austrian and so on.