DIVERSITY PROVIDES FOR DIVIDE AND RULE WITHOUT EXTERNAL AGENTS by Alex Mark Nieo

DIVERSITY PROVIDES FOR DIVIDE AND RULE WITHOUT EXTERNAL AGENTS

by Alex Mark Nieora

—“Equally it may be said that diversity is easier to govern as diversity necessarily entails fragmented and divided cultures, preferences, nationalities, languages and abilities that may lack an overarching and unifying constant between themselves. Thereby diversity provides in itself the division of divide and rule politics without even necessitating the implementation of external agents of division.”—

BUT THE FALLACY OF RAWLS REMAINS

–“However, diversity is also the hallmark and bedrock – the sine qua non really – of liberty and tolerance. So diversity is a challenge. It is a challenge also in regards to tolerating the intolerant. This is a dilemma that was confronted by certain legal philosophers such as John Rawls in his later work The Law of The Peoples, which addresses international politics.

Previously in A Theory of Justice, he explains the reasons why diversity must be tolerated for not only the greater but the individual good through his concept of the original position.

In the Law of The Peoples Rawls argues that the legitimacy of a liberal international order is contingent on tolerating decent peoples. Rawls held that decent peoples might have state religions and deny adherents of minority faiths the right to hold positions of power within the state, and might indeed organise political participation via consultation hierarchies rather than elections.

However, he maintained that no well-ordered peoples may violate human rights or behave in an externally aggressive manner. He held peoples do not have the right to the mutual respect and tolerance possessed by liberal and decent peoples.”—

“DECENT PEOPLE”

I’ll define decent in Propertarian terms: those people who have suppressed all free riding from criminal to ethical to moral to conspiratorial. One is more decent than another if one suppresses more free riding than another.

(I despise Rawls as an obscurantist. Hoppe is right. The only moral question is property.)