I am not at all sure how libertarianism handles political
issues inherent in colonialism, though I am fairly sure there is nothing in its
doctrines of property or government to prevent it.
Imagine highly advanced nation A begins to settle and economically
exploit more or less empty parts of faraway geographic region B, the whole of
which is somewhat sparsely inhabited by several peoples of a stone age, semi-nomadic,
and essentially hunting and food gathering culture.
So great is this gap, in fact, that there is no role in the
settler economy that could be usefully played by voluntary native labor; and
there is no question of the settlers using involuntary labor.
To prevent conflict with competing advanced nation C, A
declares the whole of region B subject to its control.
This has little impact on a few of the indigenous people,
and none on nearly all.
The indigenous culture and economy are as close to totally
untouched as makes no difference.
The power in B of nation A is mostly used to keep out those
competitors, mentioned above, to prevent occasional thefts of settler property
or attacks on settlements by indigenous individuals or groups, and to provide
police and government for nation A’s own colonists.
It is not in any sense used to govern the indigenous peoples who continue to live according to their own ways, subject to their customary leaders, however formal or informal.
It is not in any sense used to govern the indigenous peoples who continue to live according to their own ways, subject to their customary leaders, however formal or informal.
Eventually, the settlers of nationality A in B achieve
independence and sovereignty with regard to nation A, continuing their mutually
useful economic and cultural relations.
Meanwhile, life goes on for the indigenous of B much as
though nothing had happened and the alien civilization of the settlers has no
significant impact on them or their ways, and vice versa.
Having had no political role in the originally colonial
government of the region by nation A, the natives now have no role in the “national”
government of the new settler state of B, controlled by the settlers from A and
their descendants.
I gather there is nothing in libertarianism that would prevent
the settler society from simply ignoring the indigenous society or societies in
region B, forever.
And yet I cannot imagine liberals accepting such a situation
for any length of time.
No comments:
Post a Comment