I read your recent post on "Coordination Problem" concerning the future of Public Choice, and your referring to the significance of both Vincent Ostrom's and Hayek's ideas for preservation of a free, and "democratic" order.
If one reads both Ostrom and Hayek one sees a certain "tension" of how exactly to preserve a free society.
Hayek emphasized the the advantage of the market order, and its "spontaneity," is that it enables a vast number of people to associate for mutual improvement of their circumstances without anyone needing to understand the nature of how the overall "system" works and coordinates the actions of all those participating in the social system of division of labor.
It is, indeed, not even necessary, per se, for those participants to understand the historical origin of the social "rules" of custom and tradition in the context of which they cooperate, or how or why these evolved "rules" assure survival and improvement of the human condition.
It is sufficient if all the members of society follow those rules (including the price signals of the competitive market) for the "system" to successfully function and have the adaptive ability to develop over time as a part of the unintended consequences of the process as a whole.
Yet, there is what we might call the meta-level for the "system" or "order" to function and prevail in the long-run. And this gets us to Vincent Ostrom's contribution, especially in his book on the Democracy and de Tocqueville's "Challenge."
For a democratic (read: a "freedom society") order to be sustainable it is necessary for a certain attitude of beliefs and values to prevail, a particular "habits of the heart" as Ostrom emphasizes, that is reinforced by a complementary "language" of meaning and understanding, and a confidence in the importance and possibility of free association as the primary avenue for men to solve their common problems (both "economic" and "political").
Such "habits of the heart," and meanings in the use of language, and confidence in free association has been severely undermined in our society -- an undermining that has been at work for far more than a century.
Thus, the task for friends of freedom must be more than reasoning among themselves -- and to other social scientists with whom they interact -- that it is necessary to think in terms of broader institutional alternatives, as essential this may be.
There is the issue of how do we foster a return to and a more refined set of those beliefs and values among the members of society, when it has been so significantly weakened or even partly erased from the societal memory.
And furthermore, how to retain it, when the very logic of a Hayek's understanding of a free society that when in existence it is not necessary for people to have a cognitive appreciation by them for the market order (and general free society) to function.
They merely exist as the "taken-for-granted" norms that "everyone just 'knows' to be 'right'," as societal "prejudices" (in the sense that Robert Nisbet used to use that term).
How do you generate a change in "prejudices" consistent with liberty rather than political paternalism and mirages of social justice?
The reason why "democracy" still exists and "works" in America is the existing residues of those elements that Ostrom focused on. They do not exist in any similar way in, say, Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria (to just mention those places some American intellectuals -- "left" and "right" -- have dreamed of "creating" democratic societies).
How do you change the institutional setting and "rules" when those in society who live and act within the rules have lost many of the "prejudices" that preserved a free society in the past, and have no cognitive understanding of why the change in the "rules" over the last hundred years has weakened the social order that gives them degrees of freedom and prosperity?
In a nutshell? How do we bring about a rebirth of the "habits of the heart" and the language of liberty without which it is difficult to see how we may return to the path that we lost?