But if you take the problem of violence seriously, and then your beliefs change such that you no longer believe the NAP is sufficient to produce a peaceful world, you look for a new solution 4/
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @WilliamAEden
IMO, there are multiple solutions to the question of "how do you create peace given that some people aggress" and not all are traditionally "neoreactionary". 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @WilliamAEden
The solution I usually see described as "liberalism" or sometimes "minarchism" is to have a strong but tolerant state. (Or, internationally, a strong, tolerant, cosmopolitan hegemon or empire.) 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @WilliamAEden
Having a central authority isn't very libertarian, but arguably this one concession enables the preservation of other freedoms. People can mostly be left alone to do as they like if they keep the peace and don't disturb the power structure. 3/
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @WilliamAEden
Alternatively, you can have distributed means of self-defense, as in traditional & medieval stateless societies. Instead of having one tolerant ruler keeping the peace, the threat of reprisal and self-defense keeps the peace. 4/
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @WilliamAEden
People usually assume that stateless societies must be poor and violent compared to states, but there are a few historical counterexamples. Medieval Iceland was peaceful compared to its contemporaries; Harappan civilization seemed to have Bronze-Age-level cities rivaling Babylon.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @WilliamAEden
Realistic appraisal of violence often (though not always) leads to non-anarchism, but is compatible with a variety of political outlooks, including the "classical liberalism" of the founders of the US.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @WilliamAEden
IMO libertarians go NRx not because NRx are the only people who think about power and strategy, but because they're the only *recent* political theorists who don't cloak it in rhetoric that favors existing powers. Hobbes, Hamilton, Aristotle, Plato, etc. talk about all of this.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
For example: the US originally promoted a lot of international projects (like NATO or Radio Free Europe) to advance US interests. Today you'll mostly just see idealistic reasons and not strategic ones in popular articles that support these institutions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You'll see criticisms of international institutions from nationalists (like Putin & Xi) that they give the US too much power relative to other countries, but you'll rarely see Americans say "internationalism benefits America's world position and that's why we should pursue it."
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin @WilliamAEden
Hence you might assume that the nationalists are the only ones who think about realpolitik, when that's not the case.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.