Once you have crafted lenses that change your perspective, it is a great temptation to look at everything through the same spectacles.
I do, however, want to plead innocent to two charges that I do not think a careful reading would sustain.
The first charge is that my argument is uncritically admiring of the local, the traditional and the customary. I understand that the practical knowledge I describe is often inseparable from the practices of domination, monopoly, and exclusion that offend the modern liberal sensibility. My point is not that practical knowledge is the product of some mythical, egalitarian state of nature. Rather, my point is that formal schemes of order are untenable without some elements of the practical knowledge that they tend to dismiss.
The second charge is that my argument is an anarchist case against the state itself. The state, as I make abundantly clear, is the vexed institution that is the ground of both our freedoms and our unfreedoms. My case is that certain kinds of states, driven by utopian plans and and authoritarian disregard for the values, desires, and objections of their subjects, are indeed a mortal threat to human well-being.