1

There is a lot of literature out there trying to justify the formation of homogeneous states (eg. like racial ethnostates) based on libertarian values. The liberty point boils down to, that if a homogeneous group of people decide to find some remote area that is completely cut-off from the rest of civilization, they should have the freedom to do so.

I am trying hard to find some liberty-based discussions on this (not economical or prosperity based because people are free to be poor if they choose so). Here are my rebuttals to that.

  1. Separate planet. First, this rogue state would have to be on a separate planet. This is because they must not benefit from any of the inventions developed by the pluralistic civilization. They must not even benefit from any protections such as deflecting asteroids and improving Earth's climate.
  2. Freedom of association issues The children of that rogue state would have to be provided with the freedom to visit the pluralistic civilization. However, when they do so, they will absorb technology and ideas that they are not allowed to bring back to the rogue state. So now the kids are not free to return, which again contradicts the freedom of association.

So the only argument I see for such a rogue state, is that it is on a separate planet and it is one-generational. Right? Any feedback or ideas?

curiousaboutliberty
  • 11
  • 1
  • I wonder if they need to be completely cut off to fulfill their goal of homogeneity. Do you have a reference to someone who wants a homogeneous state and who also wants to be completely cut off? Regardless, welcome! – Frank Hubeny Sep 01 '19 at 19:42
  • Lost access to that account. Yes, I meant to just say remote from the rest of civilization. Then I tried to argue that this would entail a complete cut off. Since they have a closed economy barring others, they are not allowed to benefit from the fruits and protections of a pluralistic economy. Right? It would require careful trade agreements that might be bound to fail since it is hard to quantify the value of new technologies. – Thomas Kojar Sep 01 '19 at 21:07
  • I do not follow. The point of homogeneity is presumably the reduction of conflict, not splendid isolation and no exchange of ideas. Why shouldn't these homostates benefit from each other and heterostates, or accept newcomers assuming those pass the homogeneity test? – Conifold Sep 01 '19 at 23:08
  • One issue is that it would be a headache to maintain such an exchange, if it is even possible. Suppose that the homogeneity test is based on an unchangeable trait like ethnic background. The people possessing that trait should have the individual right to choose whether to support the growth of these homostates. For example, such an inventor should have the right to refuse to have her/his inventions shared with a homostate. – Thomas Kojar Sep 02 '19 at 00:18
  • This post came after reading about racial ethnostates and their liberty arguments. Instead of responding with disgust, I prefer to formulate a clear philosophical analysis based on first principles. Do any of their arguments stand? What are some possible contradictions? – Thomas Kojar Sep 02 '19 at 00:34
  • Sure. But why exacerbate the difficulties by placing them on a separate planet? Inventors have an option of not sharing even as it is, unless they entered some prior commitments to fund their research, etc. And it is not like heterostates do not have problems of their own, such as ethnic tensions. Could you give a reference to their arguments? You'll need a balanced counterargument that shows that the benefits of ethnic homogeneity are outweighed by the shortcomings of reduced diversity, illiberal measures to maintain it, and potential self-isolation. Part of it has to be empirically based. – Conifold Sep 02 '19 at 00:49
  • one analysis written by a libertarian blog with some references but many more can be found: https://www.zerothposition.com/2017/11/17/libertarians-support-ethnic-nationalism/ – Thomas Kojar Sep 02 '19 at 20:08
  • Please feel free to add more tags to increase visibility. This is a recurring issue that seems to be a bit of a taboo but it has to be analyzed philosophically because libertarian arguments can be construed to justify hateful acts. – Thomas Kojar Sep 02 '19 at 20:12
  • Is there anything else I can do to make the question more clear? – Thomas Kojar Sep 04 '19 at 22:23
  • Can someone tell me why this post is so quiet? Is the question ill posed, unclear or trivial? Is the question too difficult to answer or not interesting enough? – Thomas Kojar Sep 12 '19 at 18:32

0 Answers0