sign in sign up
<<
Home , Harm principle

Master

Cultural diversity without the state: How can a society based upon anarcho-capitalist create a better environment for cultural diversity than the multicultural democratic state?

VOUILLAMOZ, Michael

Abstract

An intellectual journey dedicated to investigating (state) multiculturalism and the multicultural democratic state in order to theorize an anarcho-capitalist libertarian approach to the phenomenon of cultural diversity imperative to the former two motivated primarily by the unsettling and increasing lack of separation between culture and politics in the Western world. Prior to this, one had entertained the idea of tackling the political puzzle of the rise of political correctness and the related erosion of the of expression as noted by Trevor Phillips in his documentary. The increased presence of politically incorrect and controversial personalities, however, in the political and cultural landscape of the Western world has not brought about a more tolerant climate for objectionable ideas nor a greater degree of diversity of opinions being debated in a civilized manner. Instead, the conflict between different political and cultural groups with distinct identities continues to escalate.

Reference

VOUILLAMOZ, Michael. Cultural diversity without the state: How can a society based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarianism create a better environment for cultural diversity than the multicultural democratic state?. Master : Univ. Genève, 2018

Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:102208

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

Cultural Diversity Without The State:

How can a society based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarianism create a better environment for cultural diversity than the multicultural democratic state?

Maîtrise en science politique Janvier 2018 Michael Vouillamoz Sous la direction de Prof. Matteo Gianni Juré: Jérôme Grand Université de Genève

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Gianni for his support, guidance, and most of all open-mindedness considering the heterodox nature of the theoretical framework that this work involves. Not for once had he discouraged me to pursue this research project on the grounds of the impracticalities of the political system proposed to ever come into realization nor on any other grounds for that matter.

Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the great deal of intellectual debt that I owe to those who have written extensively on the school of thought of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism. I would also like to thank my parents for my culturally diverse upbringing.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation for friends and acquaintances with whom I can engage in civilized political discussions despite the diverse array of cultures, ideologies, and identities that we have.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 1 Table of Contents

1. Introduction, Problematization, and Research Question ……………………… 3 1.1 Thesis Outline ………………………………………………………………… 6

2. Operationalization of Key Concepts and Existing Literature …………………. 7 2.1 Culture ……………………………………………………………………………….. 9 2.2 The Ethnonationalist/Alt-right Approach to Culture …………………………….. 14 2.3 (State) Multiculturalism & the Multicultural Democratic State ………………… 20

3. Multiculturalist Political Theorists and Arguments …………………………… 23 3.1 Kymlicka …………………………………………………………………………….. 23 3.2 Taylor ………………………………………………………………………………… 27

4. Cultural Diversity ………………………………………………………………… 30 4.1 Kukathas’ Classical Liberal Multiculturalism …………………………………….. 36 4.2 The Problems of Cultural Diversity ………………………………………………... 37

5. Anarcho-capitalist libertarianism ……………………………………………….. 41 5.1 , Natural , and the Freedom of Expression ……………………. 43 5.2 Self-ownership ……………………………………………………………………….. 46 5.3 The non-aggression principle ……………………………………………………….. 48 5.4 The State and Democracy …………………………………………………………… 49 5.5 Voluntarism and Secession ………………………………………………………….. 53 5.6 Nations by Consent ………………………………………………………………….. 56

6. Synthesis of Ideas and Conclusion ……………………………………………… 59

7. Bibliography and Other Sources ………………………………………………… 62

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 2 1. Introduction, Problematization, and Research Question

“Politics is Downstream from Culture.” (Breitbart, Andrew)1

Whether an observation or a prophetic vision of the current state of political affairs that was to come after his death, whether one enjoys or absolutely despises the content of the news website that he founded, it would be ill-advised for anybody engaged in the study of politics to be oblivious to the symbiotic relationship between culture and politics, especially in this day and age. As it happens, if one follows the news at all, one be constantly reminded of the fact that a pop culture icon was elected against experienced career politicians as the so called leader of the free world in the shape of Donald Trump. To add to that, Steve Bannon, the person central to Trump’s campaign strategy and his administration until his unglamorous dismissal was the successor to Andrew Breitbart at the right-wing news outlet (Sarlin, 2016). Indeed, if one looks back at history, the lack of separation between culture and politics is not at all a novelty. Even inheritors of ancient civilizations have in modern times not been immune to using both violent and non-violent political means in the quest for cultural legitimacy and dominance as the rivalry between the Communists and the Nationalists in China can attest to (Wachman, 1994).

What is new however, is the violent escalation of identitarian political divisions along the lines of cultural and ethnic backgrounds in a liberal democratic society that is the United States, which was supposed to be and had indeed for longer than not been able to reconcile divisive factors that are prone to politicization. Long gone are the days of extreme political forces not resorting to violence in order to achieve change as when the Supreme Court ruling in favour of an anti-Semitic group’s right to march through a predominantly Jewish community resulted in the organizers’ cancellation of the event (Barnum, 1982). Instead, this environment in which a diversity of cultures and identities exists witnessed the violent clash between white nationalists and their extreme left opponents in Charlottesville this year culminated in the death of a protester being ran over by a car (Carissimo, 2017). In addition, the electoral statistics of the last U.S. Presidential Election in 2016, which indicated that the majority of “white voters” voted for Trump while the majority of “non-white voters” voted for Hillary Clinton further highlights the societal divide of a culturally and ethnically diverse

1 This quote was referred to in an article published on Breitbart.com by Meyers, L. (2011, August 22).

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 3 society (Henley, 2016). For those who have any knowledge of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, which has given rise to the term Balkanization, there is little reason to be optimistic about a political system that does not guarantee the absolute right of secession of local political communities with their distinct cultures (Pringle, 2016). This can be demonstrated in the United States Supreme Court’s 1869 ruling against Texas’ right to unilaterally declare secession (Murray, 2003) and the later on suppression of Black Nationalist secession movements with the use of state force (FBI, 2016). Therefore, as a political scientist, it is not at all beyond the scope of one’s field of study to seek a peaceful way to deal with cultural diversity and the preservation of culture as neither has rarely flourished during times of violent conflicts throughout human history. It thus comes as no surprise that there is indeed a specific branch within the field of political science dedicated to the subject matter of multiculturalism although the policy proposals and implications that it has generated have yet to successfully create an environment for cultural diversity to flourish without political conflict.

On the contrary, Western European leaders such as David Cameron (Kuenssberg, 2011) and Angela Merkel (Evans, 2010) have not been shy to declare the failure of multiculturalism while the cautionary phrase “sleepwalking to segregation” in reaction to the 7 July 2005 London bombings (The Guardian, 2005) has become a self-fulfilling prophecy with the rise of domestic terrorism originating from ghettoized neighborhoods in European regions such as Luton and Molenbeek. As the Mayor of the second city explained in the aftermath of a terror attack, the lack of diversity amongst the immigrant population within the neighborhood has been “one of the main difficulties” when it comes to combating “the growing threat of homegrown terror on its streets” (Capatides, 2016). In spite of all of this, however, there has been a lack of literature on the topic that does not involve state intervention in cultural affairs while being committed to the non-initiation of force. Instead, as will be demonstrated later on in the body of this work, existing literature on the subject matter tends to favour using the state and its institutions to foster cultural diversity and facilitate the preservation of minority cultures due to a particular view of culture that is not always reflective of the realities of the world we live in. This is then the prime motivation for the inquiry taking place in this paper aimed at contributing to the field of political science by devising and arguing in favour of an anarcho-capitalist libertarian approach to cultural diversity as the school of thought is wholeheartedly committed to the non-aggression principle while rejecting the very existence of a centralized state authority (Rothbard, 2006, p. 27).

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 4 By the end of this paper, one will have provided an answer to the following research question:

How can a society based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarianism create a better environment for cultural diversity than the multicultural democratic state?

To specify, while the said society in the research question will be one of purely theoretical nature, the cultural diversity and the conflicts to which one will attempt to apply the theoretical framework will be true to and rooted in the world in which we live. This means that the conceptualization of the elements central to cultural diversity such as culture and multiculturalism will contain references to pertinent real life phenomena. In addition to the motivations for taking upon such a task expressed earlier in the introduction, this paper is also a reaction to the inconsistencies amongst the existing multiculturalist theorists’ conceptions of the state and its proper role in regards to cultural diversity. An example of this is their acknowledgement of the lack of neutrality “with respect to the language and culture of immigrants” of the state, which is argued to represent and reinforce the culture of the majority population, while advocating for the expansion of the same liberal democratic state in order to cater to cultural diversity (Kymlicka, 2007b, p. 11). Furthermore, one also takes great issue with the incoherent nature of the arguments of right-wing nationalists regarding the continuation and preservation of culture rooted in an ill-conceived notion of what culture entails. This will be demonstrated later on with the use of historical examples of ethnically homogenous authoritarian regimes that have actually caused the loss of aspects of their respective national cultures. This is especially pertinent within the context of this paper and the set of ideas involved as several high-profile members of the rising right-wing nationalist movement such as Richard Spencer and Christopher Cantwell were previously libertarians have been able to attract more people who are anti-state to the movement (Weigel, 2017). Simply calling them racists, a label which many of them would not reject, with emotional outrage will not prevent the movement from growing at the cost of social stability while propagating its misguided understandings of how cultures can be preserved. What must be done instead, is to demonstrate that the political system for which they argue in favour cannot bring about the preservation of culture due to their narrow conceptualization of culture. While libertarians would indeed defend the right of private persons and establishments to discriminate against on the basis of their racial/ethnic backgrounds (Hoppe, 2001, p. 140) the authoritarian nature of the political system that would be in place in order to reinforce the racial/ethnic and cultural purity desired by right-wing nationalists is

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 5 undoubtedly antithetical to libertarian values. As will be illustrated in the respective section later on, in the event of the creation of a privatized community of which only racially/ethnically and culturally homogenous people decided to voluntarily become members, there would be no need for any authority to reinforce the so called racial/ethnic and cultural purity if such a thing can be reinforced at all from a perspective that goes beyond Western democracies.

Before proceeding with the analysis and presentation of the main theoretical frameworks within which this paper will operate, one will provide the reader with an outline of this paper in the following section.

1.1 Thesis Outline

As noted in the introduction, while various political forces have defended their positions by placing an emphasis on their positive effects on culture, the ways in which they view culture and its related concepts can differ greatly from each other and are not always reflective of reality such as the equivalency drawn between race and culture. In the first instance then, one will devise a more comprehensive conceptualization of culture that builds upon an overly simplistic view of culture by making use of not only the assertions of political theorists writing on the subject matter but also considering how culture manifests itself in the world we live in. Having done that, this will help one to demonstrate with the additional use of historical cases as to why the arguments of the alt-right ethnonationalists are ill-conceived. After this, one will present the reader with a conceptualization of multiculturalism and the multicultural democratic state based upon the ideas of the former found in existing literature and by looking at real life examples of the ways in which states respond to cultural diversity. Following that, one will delve further into the main arguments put forward by multiculturalist political theorists in favour of state actions exemplified within the scope of this paper by and Charles Taylor. Throughout this section, one will also take notice when the statements of these political theorists are in disaccord with the previously established conceptualization of culture by applying the same critical lenses applied to the arguments of the alt-right ethnonationalists. Based upon the observations made in this section and the previously devised characteristics of culture then, one will proceed to discuss as to what cultural diversity entails while also illustrating how it has historically been and continues today to be capable of inspiring both violent and non-violent conflicts. Within this section,

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 6 one will also present the classical liberal approach to cultural diversity devised by Chandran Kukathas, which in addition to the inadequacies of state responses to the phenomenon noted in the same section, will further help to justify the inquiry into an anarcho-capitalist libertarian response to it. Finally, then, one will present the key concepts of the anarcho- capitalist variant of libertarianism while considering their implications for cultural diversity and its problems before arguing as to how the principles of the school of thought could provide the foundations for a societal environment that allows for cultural diversity to thrive while avoiding violent conflicts. In the concluding section, one will reflect upon the discussions that have taken place throughout the paper while considering their potential implications for further discussions of other political problems.

2. Operationalization of Key Concepts and Existing Literature

Since the political theorists pertaining to the subject matter of multiculturalism can hold different interpretations of the key concepts such as culture and multiculturalism, one has made the deliberate choice to make use of overly generalized definitions of such concepts as foundations for a more comprehensive conceptualization of culture and multiculturalism. The reason for which this is done is to avoid any influence from the author’s own interpretation of these concepts on the way in which they are defined for the purpose of this paper. In essence, the aim of this section is to provide third party conceptualization of culture and multiculturalism in order to eliminate as many ideological biases as possible since as alluded to previously they can lead to understandings of culture that are divorced from reality. To further elaborate, this is important because while certain conceptualizations of culture might not be entirely invalid, they do not provide us with a full picture of what characteristics culture possesses. For example, while the close association between race/ethnicity and culture propagated by right-wing nationalists and ironically left-wing extremists who condemn “cultural appropriation” is not entirely untrue as far as our world is concerned, this characteristic is most certainly not the only thing that defines culture (Oates, 2017). In the event of the multiculturalist political theorists being discussed in the following section holding definitions of culture and multiculturalism in stark contrast to those postulated in this section, this will be articulated in an explicit manner and one will take it into consideration. Once the definitions are put forward, one will make use of both contemporary examples and historical accounts pertaining to the development of culture and its succession in order to construct a comprehensive analysis as to how culture is created, interrupted and sustained.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 7 For the purpose of this paper, one intends to mainly make use of but will not limit oneself to historical accounts from the modern era during which there has been demonstrable tensions between the state and cultural affairs. The choice of historical accounts of political entities that correspond to certain theoretical approaches to culture rather than political analyses of how culture develops and interacts with the state is intentional as to minimize the confounding effects of ideological prejudices regarding these particular historical periods on the analysis of this paper. For example, while some people might praise the scientific and intellectual developments that occurred during the Weimar Republic (Gordon & McCormick, 2013), those who sympathize with the National Socialists will be more likely to regard that period of history with absolute contempt due to the relaxed cultural attitude towards pornography and prostitution that they label as “degeneracy” (O'Shaughnessy, 2017). Similarly on the extreme left, while the Cultural Revolution waged by Mao in China can be regarded by some Marxists such as Alain Badiou (Gray, 2014) as a period of cultural innovation, many others would argue that it was a period during which traditional culture was utterly destroyed (University of Nottingham China Policy Institute, 2016). Conversely, however, since authoritarian regimes based upon the ideas and ideologies espoused by political forces that seek to provide a solution to the current problems of culturally and ethnically diverse societies no longer de facto exist in the Western world, the choice of historical periods to analyze will be motivated by the types of states that existed during those times. To clarify, this means that in order to evaluate the claims of current ethno nationalists, one must focus on historical periods during which ethnically homogenous authoritarian states were present in order to demonstrate that the approach cannot be viable alternative to anarcho-capitalist libertarianism when it comes to fostering the development and preservation of culture. This evaluation will also be done to the arguments of those in favour of the multicultural democratic state by taking into consideration the current state of cultural affairs and diversity within societies that have adopted the political system.

As these two extreme examples are presented, one can already foresee the raising of another important question as to what kind of criterion ought to be applied to cultural artifacts in order to evaluate the political systems under which they came into being. To put it simply, such standards do not exist as the level of cultural development throughout human history has always been relative in comparison to the preceding and or proceeding historical periods. As a result, one will not be passing judgments regarding what is a “good culture” or “bad culture” within the scope of this paper. However, this would not, for example, prevent one from

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 8 arguing that the lack of separation between culture and politics in Soviet Russia rendered it a relatively poor environment for cultures to flourish in comparison to the Western democracies in which many Russian artists sought refuge. That being said, what one has decided to do then, is to devise a comprehensive set of characteristics possessed by culture that is grounded in both various theoretical approaches to culture and how it manifests itself in real life societies. It is then this that will be the basis for evaluating political systems in terms of the extent to which they allow for cultures to flourish by not engaging in cultural planning nor the suppression of the freedom of expression. Furthermore, having a working definition of culture also allows one to better elucidate another concept that is integral to this paper, cultural diversity.

2.1 Culture Drawing inspiration from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Song, 2016) and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Rodriguez, n.d.) from the University of Tennessee, Martin, which are both peer-reviewed academic resources, the first characteristic of culture that can be ascertained is that of being “constitutive of personal identity” (Festenstein 2005). Taking into consideration the emphasis placed upon minority groups by multiculturalist political theorists, the definition of culture ought also include being constitutive of group identities, which are ultimately formed by persons i.e. individuals. Indeed, as put forth in the SEP evoking Amy Gutmann (2003), “identity politics” is a concept central to multiculturalism. Attesting to this, is the rise of identitarian movements on both the extreme left and the ethnonationalist right within Western democratic societies that are culturally diverse. Examples of this include but are not limited to the rise of Eurosceptic right-wing nationalist political parties in Europe (Chakelian, 2017) and the resurgence of African American identity politics in the shape of the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States that are both based upon ethnic/racial identities (Winter & Weinberger, 2017). Additionally, one could also take into consideration the various movements based on gender identities and sexual orientations. Due to the limited scope of this paper, however, one will not be discussing such movements.

In Will Kymlicka’s magnum opus , Community, and Culture (1991), the multiculturalist theorist does not make clear distinction between culture and identity either but elaborates on his view of cultures as “instrumentally valuable to individuals” (Song, 2016). Inspired by Rawls’ theory of justice, Kymlicka (1991, p. 166) views cultural

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 9 membership as a “primary good” and in a later work highlights the function of culture as “contexts of choice”, which “provide meaningful options and scripts with which people can frame, revise, and pursue their goals” (Kymlicka, 1995, p. 89). In addition to providing a view of culture in relation to individuals, Kymlicka also discusses culture in terms of groups to which individuals can have a sense of belonging and with which they can identify themselves to help them form a “basis of self-respect” (Song, 2016). Like many other multiculturalist political theorists, Kymlicka (1995, p. 109-111) also draws a distinction between majority and minority cultures within societies. Within such a dichotomy, members of minority cultures whether being national or immigrant minorities are at a disadvantage as the existing political and economic circumstances within a society often are in the advantage of members of the majority culture. Indeed, the argument that cultures can determine the social-economic and political advancements of diverse ethnic groups is also echoed by two of the most prominent African American free-market economists Walter E. Williams (2011) and Thomas Sowell (1983). What distinguishes these economists from the multicultural political theorists, however, is their opposition to the expansion of the state, which is required in order to guarantee the “group differentiated rights” justified within the majority versus minority paradigm (Banting & Kymlicka, 2006). Despite the discrepancies that exist amongst the ways in which different multiculturalist theorists such as Kymlicka (1995) and Taylor (1992) conceptualize the majority and the minority, the majority minority dichotomy is agreed upon and so is the contention that the latter is often at a disadvantageous position in comparison to the former. To elaborate, while Kymlicka (2007b, p. 4) considers the distinction between “a liberal majority and communitarian minorities”, Taylor (1992, p. 26) discusses the contrast between a “white” majority and non-white minorities especially within the context of colonization. That being said, such discrepancies are not of great pertinence within the scope of this paper. According to Kymlicka (2007b, p. 6-7), “ethnic nations take the reproduction of a particular ethnonational culture and identity as one of their most important goals” while a “societal culture tends to emphasize that it involves a common language and social institutions, rather than common religious beliefs, family customs or personal lifestyles”. While the family’s role in the reproduction of culture within the framework of multiculturalist political theorists is as demonstrated for example in the previous statement to some extent acknowledged, it is for some reason very often overlooked. Interestingly enough, despite their staunch opposition to multiculturalism and cultural diversity, alt-right ethnonationalists also place an emphasis on the role of the family in preserving and reproducing culture and thus regards the rise of the identity politics of non-heterosexual relationships as a threat to the traditional family (Ehrenfreund, 2016). Within the libertarian framework, the family can be regarded as “anarchistic institution” that “requires no act of the state to bring it about” that would provide resistance to the expansion of the state, especially the as it would render it unnecessary, the implications of this in relation to

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 10 culture and its development will be investigated later on (Rockwell Jr, 1998). That being said, the relationship between family and culture is more frequently discussed when immigrant minorities are the subject matter as the state is regarded as perpetuating the liberal norms of the majority culture in Western societies while the immigrant minorities have to take the task of preserving their cultures and norms upon themselves. This phenomenon is most evident regarding the issue of the reinforcement of national languages used by the majority population, through public institutions such as schools and participation in the , placing immigrant minorities at a disadvantage and forcing them to sometimes choose between one and the other because the lack of state support (Kymlicka, 2007b, p. 7).

At this point, one should have taken notice that there is not always a clear distinction between race/ethnicity and culture within the theoretical frameworks of multiculturalist thinkers as the two terms can sometimes be used in a interchangeable manner. This is due to not only the primarily collectivist rather than individualistic approaches to cultures as represented by groups in Kymlicka’s (2007a & 2007b) works and communities in Taylor’s (1992, p. 42) work but also a result of the later addition of a postcolonial/historical injustice perspective on multiculturalism in which the majority and minority populations in Western liberal democracies are identified as white Europeans and non-whites respectively. Ironically, this association of race/ethnicity with culture has increasingly been adopted by right-wing ethnonationalists, also referred to as the alt-right, who regard multiculturalism and the arguments of multiculturalist political theorists as posing an existential threat to Western civilization (Reinhard, 2016). While one would not take issue with the view that people’s cultural identities can overlap with their ethnic/racial identities e.g. African Americans being associated with African American culture, Chinese Americans being associated with Chinese American culture, and etc, one must question the extent to which such a generalization can be applied to all cultures as discussed in this section. As a result, one will also treat the policy implications of such a view with critical lenses in the later sections. In addition, members of the alt-right also share an advocacy of the family albeit the more traditional form, which could be argued to be more prevalent amongst the immigrant population in the Western world than amongst the liberal individualistic majority, for its supposed capacity of reproducing culture (Lim, 2018 ; Zill, 2016). To put it briefly, individuals who adhere to such views hold the belief that only the creation of an ethnically/racially homogenous authoritarian state can help preserve European/European American cultures (Southern Poverty Law Center, n.d.). These individuals amongst whom the most prominent is Richard Spencer often have a

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 11 vocal online following but are not members of respected established academia and have not made peer reviewed publications. When one takes into consideration the controversial nature of their ideas and the respective policy implications, it is no surprise that the mere presence of such people being invited to speak on university campuses can provoke protests (Beckett, 2017). As far as this paper is concerned, this adds a degree of difficulty to the task of providing a coherence synthesis of their ideas. This will be elaborated in the later section dedicated to ethnonational state. In stark contrast to the views on culture presented thus far, the classical liberal and to some extent libertarian political theorist writing on the subject matter of multiculturalism Chandran Kukathas (2003, p. 79) contends that “all human associations, including cultural groups, are not fixed but highly mutable things which change with economic, legal, and political circumstances”. Reiterating the notion that culture is mutable and susceptible to changes throughout his work theorizing diversity, Kukathas (2003, p. 213) further argues that the role of the state is not “to serve as the cultural architect” but to “preserve order so that people might live freely together”. It is worth noting that although Kukathas view of culture is at odds with that of Kymlicka’s (2007b), which the former argues, “divides the world more definitely into ‘societal cultures’”, Kukathas does not explicitly reject Kymlicka’s critique of the state as an institution that can favour one cultural group over another. Instead, Kukathas (2003, p. 214) postulates that the state is additionally also “with interests of its own”, which could be argued to mean that states can also have their own cultures whether political or not to varying degrees. For example, states can create symbols such as flags and coats of arms, construct architecture and erect monuments with and without the people’s wishes, and does not lend its support indiscriminately to the media.

Despite such criticisms, neither of these multiculturalist theorists nor indeed any other political scientists writing on the subject matter such as Lægaard (2011) reject the notion that there is still a role for the state to play in cultural affairs. While this might not be at all contentious when one observes the involvement of states in promoting and fostering cultural developments in real life societies, which is especially evident amongst diplomatic missions abroad that usually have a section dedicated to the promotion of their respective cultures, it becomes more problematic when one takes into consideration Kukathas’ conception of the state. Even without applying any theoretical framework, the simple fact that states have limited resources at their disposal in such a case would mean that at a certain point it must choose between allocating its resources to the promotion of its own interests or cultures over those of civil society and thus becoming incapable of supporting societal cultural

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 12 developments. Furthermore, as will be discussed more in depth in a later section, when one approaches the issue from an anarcho-capitalist libertarian perspective, which fundamentally rejects the institution of the state, the problem regarding its relationship with culture could also be used to construct an argument against the state.

As one arrives at the end of this section, one can conclude that the previous contention that the conception of culture differs between sets of political thoughts and theoretical frameworks has indeed been demonstrated to be withstanding. In addition, having chosen a deliberately simplistic conception of culture as “constitutive of personal identity” as a point of departure and then proceeding to build upon it a more inclusive definition of culture by taking into consideration the diversity of viewpoints on the subject matter, one has produced an inclusive summary of the various characteristics of culture. The reason as to why this is especially important for this paper, as mentioned earlier on, is due to the fact that while various approaches to culture can individually make valid characterizations regarding culture, the characteristics underlined by each approach are not the only ones that can be made about culture. What this section has also demonstrated then, is the inadequacies and the limits of the ways in which the multiculturalists political theorists considered for this paper view culture, which will help to justify one’s critical approach later on to the political system inspired by their ideas, the multicultural democratic state. As a result, one was left with the task of developing a coherent synthesis of what culture entails within the scope and context of this paper in order to proceed with the evaluations of political systems in terms of the extent to which they respect the integrity of cultures and thus cultural diversity. The result of this is process is the following:

Cultures can hold intrinsic value, Cultural memberships can provide people with a sense of well-being and belonging, Cultures can guide people’s decision making process, Cultures are mutable and can change over time, Cultures can overlap with race/ethnicity to varying extents, but the former does not equate to the latter Cultures can be reproduced by families, Cultures can be related to economic and political advancements, Cultures can be both individualistic and collectivist. Cultural practices can be affected by state policies.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 13

Before proceeding with the analyses, one finds it necessary to clarify as to why an anarcho- capitalist libertarian conception of culture is not included in the synthesis of this section since the theoretical framework is supposed to be central to this paper and thus its absence in this section might baffle the reader. The answer to this is firstly, as noted briefly in the introduction is the ostensive lack of interest amongst this school of libertarians in engaging in cultural affairs and identity politics due to their uncompromising adherence to . Secondly, in a similar fashion to its treatment of human nature (Rothbard, 2006, p. 32), anarcho-capitalist libertarianism does not hold any restrictive view of culture but instead accepts it as it is and acknowledges that it does play a role in politics, economics, civil society and civilization in general (Rothbard, 1994, p. 1-2). To say the very least, an anarcho- capitalist libertarian would most certainly not regard cultural development as a legitimate justification for the existence of the state nor would it be an area in which the state ought to intervene if one had to exist. This will be explored more in depth in the later section pertaining to the theoretical framework.

All that being said, in order to clearly demonstrate the analytical process making use of the set of characteristics of culture established in this section, one will commence with the least complex set of ideas with its corresponding political system by looking at the respective historical accounts, namely the ethnically/racially and culturally homogenous authoritarian state proposed by the alt-right ethnonationalists. In a similar fashion, one will also identify the problems with the multicultural democratic state influenced by the conceptualization of culture devised by multiculturalist political theorists in the respective section. Together, one hopes to demonstrate the varying extents to which state policies based upon narrowly defined conceptualizations of culture can produce results that are counterproductive to the flourishing of culture. Furthermore, one finds it important to refute the arguments of the ethnonationalist alt-right concerning culture as the political system based upon them is considered by members of the movement as a viable alternative to multiculturalism (Levy, 2017).

2.2 The Ethnonationalist/Alt-right Approach to Culture As previously mentioned, what is at the heart of the alt-right’s theoretical framework is the close association and one could even say interchangeability between race/ethnicity and culture. According to Richard Spencer, the figurehead of the movement who also claims to have coined the term alt-right or alternative right while having been unshy of his admiration

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 14 of National Socialist Germany, the survival of the white race and European culture can only be ensured by the creation of an ethnically homogenous white homeland (Southern Poverty Law Center, n.d.). Within this theoretical framework, non-whites will be offered economic incentives to be voluntarily repatriated, which he calls “peaceful ethnic cleansing” (Southern Poverty Law Center, n.d.). Implicit in this argument, is a supremacist attitude towards race/ethnicity and culture, which is the antithesis of rejected by the alt-right. It thus comes as no surprise that the ethnonationalist alt-right utterly rejects multiculturalism as the latter is founded upon egalitarian principles, which will be discussed more in depth in the respective section later on. While the alt-right movement is primarily a reaction to the perceived inadequacies of traditional conservatism in the USA and the neo-conservatism represented by the George W. Bush administration (Jackson, 2017), it can also be regarded as a rejection of the advocated by libertarians due to the latter’s indifference towards race (Tucker, 2017). This is especially evident when one takes into consideration the libertarian past of many within the alt-right movement noted previously. Like libertarians however, the alt-right also opposes neo-conservatism and its waging of foreign wars and military interventionism abroad as exemplified by Bush’s War on Iraq despite the differences in their reasons for this opposition. While libertarians are anti-war in general, the alt-right owes its non-interventionist attitude more to the isolationism that comes with the emphasis placed upon the ethno-state's own preservation. In an interview (Roaming Millennial, 2017a), Spencer provided his explanation as to why is inadequate by arguing that due to the different historical experiences different racial groups have had to live through especially within the context of the USA, it is very difficult for them to share a collective identity and culture. For instance, while white Anglo-Saxon Americans could regard the founding of the nation as the beginning of freedom from British rule, African Americans would instead view it as nation built on slavery. As a result, Spencer argues that the ethnonationalism he advocates resolves this problem (Roaming Millennial, 2017b). Implicit in this argument, as noted previously about the ideology, is a lack of separation between people’s cultural and ethnic/racial identities. While the United States’ historical developments might indeed have rendered the relationship between such two identities more complex and intertwined than elsewhere in the world, one finds the absolute equation of the two not only ill-advised but also divorced from reality since not only “white” Americans voted for Trump whom Spencer supported. It is no surprise however, that such a view would come from a collectivist ideology that disregards people’s individuality. That being said, the alt-right as many political movements tend to be, also has its own internal

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 15 divisions of which one is perfectly aware. However, within the scope of this paper, it will be discussed as representing the aforementioned ideas to which the most prominent members of the movement adhere. While the selection process of historical cases including ethnically homogenous authoritarian regimes might initially appear to be a simple task, the need for consideration for state policies that deliberately aim to engage in what Kukathas (2003, p. 214) would call “cultural planning” renders it to be a more painstaking one. Furthermore, since the modern alt-right and ethnonationalists operate within Western countries where they already are the majority population, this eliminates the selection of all the historical political regimes that had a racist minority rule such as Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa. It must come as no surprise then that the first historical political case chosen is National Socialist Germany that has indeed been romanticized by many within the alt-right movement as seen in their adoption of the regime’s symbols such as the Roman salute (Graham, 2016). The second historical case, however, has not to the knowledge of the writer of this paper ever been used as an example of an ethnically homogenous authoritarian state that made deliberate attempts to engage in “cultural planning” in the name of preserving the respective ethnic culture. Unbeknownst to many in the Western world, the Nationalist Chinese government of Chiang Kai-Shek had more in common with the ally of their archenemy Imperial Japan than they would like to admit. Similar to National Socialist Germany, Chiang Kai-Shek’s regime was also preceded by an unstable democratic political entity that oversaw unprecedented cultural and scientific developments (Gu, 2001). Furthermore, both regimes manipulated the electoral system in order to put in place a one-party state and then declared a state of emergency that granted the ruling party absolute power to suspend the constitution. As noted in Victor Klemperer’s The Language of the Third Reich (2001), Hitler’s regime deliberately modified the German language through propaganda in order to political and societal culture in order to strengthen the power of the state (Wegner, 2004). The lack of separation between country and party was diminished with dedicated effort in both cases while the Volks prefix was added to most societal and political institutions in National Socialist Germany, the Kuomin (literally meaning nation people in Chinese) prefix2, which could also be seen in the Chinese name of the Nationalist Party Kuomintang, had the same application in Chiang Kai- Shek’s China and its institutions. Whilst the Chinese Nationalists did not engage in ethnic cleansing nor systematic genocidal practices, they did indeed make use of propaganda in order to label their political opposition, namely the communists as unpatriotic and un-Chinese

2 The writer of this paper is a native Mandarin Chinese speaker.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 16 (Chiang, 1965) like Hitler’s regime did with their political opposition in Germany (von Mises, 2010, p.140). In addition, both regimes legitimized their rule by claiming to be the rightful successor of their respective ethnic cultures and civilizations (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, n.d.; Wang, 2014). Consequently, this self-proclaimed cultural legitimacy was also one of the justifications for the acts of aggression committed by both regimes against their political opponents. Furthermore, both regimes practiced extensively to eliminate the undesirable elements of their respective cultures that had come into existence organically but did not adhere to the regimes’ idealized and romanticized visions of these cultures. Examples of such practices range from the infamous book burnings administered by Joseph Goebbels and the censorship of books in Chiang Kai-Shek’s Taiwan (Wu, 2014). As a result, while these regimes claimed to be the inheritors and defenders of their cultures, they were in fact only preserving arbitrarily selected elements such as Nordic Mythology in Germany and the Confucian notion of respecting the elderly in Taiwan that were in favour of their rule while simultaneously being willfully ignorant to the weakening of other cultural elements such as the Judeo-Christian religions in Germany and the Chinese tradition of people revolting against their rulers who had become tyrants. In doing this, minority cultures that had historically contributed to the wealth of German and Chinese cultures were also heavily suppressed, rendering the cost for individuals to preserve their cultural memberships and their cultures elevated. While German Jews were sent to concentration camps, people who dared to speak dialectic Chinese rather than the northern dialect of Mandarin Chinese in public places suffered from employment discrimination and public shaming as a part of Chiang Kai-Shek’s National Language Movement (Klöter, 2004). What can also be found within this ethnonationalist model then, is the notion that people are to have certain rights on the basis of their cultural and ethnic/racial identities, which once again is not absent in the theoretical framework of multiculturalist political theorists although their arguments for this differs significantly from those of ethnonationalists as will be discussed later. That being said, presented with such historical evidences, one would be inclined to concur with Taylor’s (1997, p. 34) contention that “the process of nation-building inescapably privileges members of the majority culture”. Indeed, as the decreasing number of mother tongue speakers of non-Mandarin Chinese dialects in Taiwan, where Chiang Kai- Shek’s regime ruled after his defeat at the hands of his rival communists Mao, can attest to, the regime that had set out to preserve and defend Chinese culture contributed to its disintegration (Klöter, 2004). To make matters worse, linguists later on discovered that certain non-Mandarin Chinese dialects were in fact more akin to Classical Chinese as poems

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 17 written centuries ago rhymed better when recited in these dialects rather than in the forcefully standardized Mandarin Chinese, which had taken in foreign influences from the ruling Manchurians (Mair, 2014). Luckily, as previously established how family can help preserve cultures, dialects being spoken at home and taught by parents prevented them from being completely extinct (Yueh, 2016, p. 30). The democratization and liberalization process that took place in Taiwan later on also allowed dialects to flourish without restrictions of its use in politics, films, literature and music. This very example demonstrates the lack of understanding for cultures on the behalf of governments and the adverse effects when they engage in “cultural planning” motivated upon arbitrary ideological grounds. Equally keen on moralizing and preventing influences of elements that were regarded as foreign and alien from tainting its culture, Hitler’s regime arbitrarily labelled artworks and other cultural products such as music as degenerate and un-German (von Mises, 2010, p.140), especially those created by Jews and other “inferior races”. This lead to the destruction and loss of numerous pieces of art. The obsession with an artificial purity of culture is also prevalent amongst modern day alt-right ethnonationalists who would be in favour of political systems like those of Hitler and Chiang Kai-Shek’s. At the heart of all of this once again is the rejection of people’s adoption of cultures that are not associated with their ethnic/racial identities and thus deemed alien and foreign, which as will be discussed later on more in depth is antithetical to the idea of cultural diversity and the . What this further implies, is that people must choose abandon or betray the cultural identity that is associated with their ethnic/racial identities and that they are incapable of having a plurality of cultural identities. The problem with this obsession as far as this paper is concerned is primarily the lack of acknowledgement of the nature of culture as mutable and not fixed. Therefore, to claim that a so called pure culture exists is simply ignorant. With the machinery of the state, an authoritarian one at that, these two regimes also commissioned their own ideologically driven and propagandizing movies, artworks, and music with the sole aim to indoctrinate their citizens and keep them subservient. These artificially created cultural products, unlike organic societal culture, hold no intrinsic value and do not provide people with a sense of well-being nor belonging but instead create and help maintain a climate of terror that stifles creativity as one would be in fear to openly deviate from the standards established by such commissioned works.

As one arrives at the end of this section, one must conclude that the argument regarding culture put forward by alt-right ethnonationalists is ultimately incoherent and logically

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 18 inconsistent as can be demonstrated by the historical political entities that largely adhere to the ideas espoused the movement. While the primary problem with the argument and the associated political system is their lack of understanding for the nature of culture as being mutable, the assertion that such a thing as a “pure” ethnic culture cannot be put into practice without the use of coercion and violence in the form of an authoritarian state. As a result, the outcome of the implementation of practices of “cultural planning” and cultural purification will inevitably be the loss and destruction of certain elements of the culture that is purportedly being prevented from “degeneration”. What has also been demonstrated in this section is that the devastating results of policies based upon ill-conceived notions of what culture entails are not always evident until a long period of time after and are very difficult if possible at all to reverse by the time they are fully studied. Regarding the alt-right’s argument in favour of ethnic/racial homogeneity, the diversity within a given any culture dismantles the absolute association between race/ethnicity and culture despite how they may very well to varying extents coincide. If the argument were true, there would not be demonstrable cultural variations amongst a single people of the same race/ethnicity. On the same basis then, one must also reject the notion that people are endowed with a certain cultural identity simply on the basis of their ethnic/racial identity and not consider the possibility of them adopting the cultural identity more associated with another ethnicity/race, which this section’s discussions have demonstrated to be antithetical to the diversity of cultures and the freedom of association. As will be demonstrated later on, this idea is ironically also present in the theoretical framework of multiculturalist political theorists, which as far as this paper is concerned renders its policy implications quite problematic. That being said, regardless of race/ethnicity, when people have more to express themselves and associate themselves with each other, they tend to produce “better” culture in the form of art, music and etc. After all, for the two nations involved in the historical cases, German and Chinese cultures are never praised for the period during which they were represented by “cultural planning” authoritarian states. Indeed, the weaker states of the Weimar Republic in Germany and the Beiyang government in China that preceded the regimes studied in this section oversaw more cultural developments than their authoritarian successors. In stark contrast, the liberal democratic successors of National Socialist Germany and Chiang Kai-Shek’s China on Taiwan came to oversee the revival of their respective cultures. Finally, if all of this fails to convince those who still believe in the capacity of an ethnically homogenous authoritarian state to protect and preserve culture, they are cordially invited to critically investigate the

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 19 case of today’s Communist China, which has more in common with Chiang Kai-Shek’s regime than its leaders would like to admit.

2.3 (State) Multiculturalism & the Multicultural Democratic State Again using the SEP (Song, 2016) and the IEP (Rodrigues, n.d.) as sources, on can contend that “within contemporary political philosophy, the concept of multiculturalism has been defined in two different ways”. While, “[s]ometimes the term ‘multiculturalism’ is used as a descriptive concept”, it can also be defined “as a kind of policy for responding to cultural diversity”. For the purpose of this paper, the concept of multiculturalism will be more akin to the second definition with policy implications, as pointed out in the SEP (Song, 2016), multiculturalist political theorists are in accord with the view that cultural diversities “are to be recognized and accommodated”, notably by the state. An example of this, as outlined in the SEP, is the existence of “group-differentiated rights” in Western liberal democracies, the political framework within which multiculturalist political theorists operate (Kymlicka, 2007a, p.77). To elaborate, “ a group-differentiated right is a right of a minority group (or a member of such a group) to act or not act in a certain way in accordance with their religious obligations and/or cultural commitments” (Song, 2016). Furthermore, this right can directly limit “the freedom of non-members in order to protect the minority group's culture, as in the case of restrictions on the use of the English language in Québec” (Song, 2016). Once again, although according to the first definition one could also take into consideration the different minorities defined by their sexual orientations and identities such as the LGBTQIA communities, this will not be a part of the discussions of this paper due to the limited scope and length of the research project. In addition, such cultural minorities are also discussed to a lesser extent by the multiculturalist political theorists to which this paper refers. That being said, it is evident that the reinforcement of such “group-differentiated right” requires the existence of a state that has the power to do so. As a result, it would not be inaccurate to refer to this political phenomenon as state multiculturalism since this particular way of dealing with cultural and ethnic diversity did not come into force from the bottom up in a voluntary manner within civil society. Instead, policy prescriptions related to multiculturalism have been for the lack of a better word, imposed, in a top down manner upon a given nation due to the ideological preference of the respective political party elected into power. Indeed, the adoption of multiculturalism as an official policy by Western European countries such as the UK (Pitcher, 2006) and Sweden (Wickström, 2015) combined with their rejection of the previous assimilationist attitudes towards the immigrant population has allowed the state to

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 20 take upon the task of fostering cultural diversity without providing the public with a clear and coherent definition of it. As a result, it can be said that these states have effectively been transformed into what can be referred to as the multicultural democratic state through the implementation of multiculturalist policies in addition to the framework of the liberal democratic state (Kymlicka, 2007a). These policies, have historically faced challenges to their legitimacy in part due to the lack of any referenda on the subject matter and caused backlashes inspired by nationalist sentiments while they continue to come under constant scrutiny until this day (Taylor, 2015). Although there had prior to the introduction of such policies been legal provisions in many Western democracies that involved cultural and ethnic minorities such as the French Canadians (Taylor, 1992, p. 52-53), what largely distinguishes the latter from the former is that they were created as a part of a nation forming process while state multiculturalism is more of a reaction to foreign immigration. To be more specific, the idea of the multicultural democratic state denotes a country in which distinct cultural identity groups and their members possess “group-differentiated rights” such as Affirmative Action as the result of an official state policy of recognition and accommodation. Indeed, if one looks at the countries in which the works of several multiculturalist political theorists are set, they all largely adhere to this definition of the multicultural democratic state such as Taylor, Kymlicka (Canada), Miller (2008) and Modood (2010) (the UK), Laegaard (2011) (Denmark), Kukathas (2003) (Australia) and Ferrarese (2009) (France) even though such theorists provide different arguments concerning multiculturalism. To take a broader view, they can also be categorized as liberal democracies, a reality which as will be demonstrated later on is at least acknowledged as the basis upon which “group-differentiated rights” can be argued by Taylor and Kymlicka whilst Kukathas focuses more on the more classical liberal aspect of the political system as will be discussed in more detail later on. The reason as to why this is of importance within the context of this paper, as will be demonstrated in the later section on anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, is due to the latter’s skepticism and even utter rejection of the liberal democratic state and indeed all forms of states with a centralized authority. That being said, the existence of group-differentiated rights on its own cannot define multicultural democratic states. Indeed, there are also examples of such rights being institutionalized by states that are neither liberal nor democratic such as Communist China where religious and cultural minorities are given preferential treatments over members of the Han Chinese majority population when applying for higher educational institutions (Sautman, 1997). While such policies took direct inspiration from the former Soviet Union (Sautman, 1997, p.1), they also resemble the Affirmative Action programmes implemented in the

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 21 United States, which is de facto a although the policy also came into force without a plebiscite. On the other hand, it is equally possible for a state to be de facto and de jure a democracy albeit not a liberal one in the Western sense while also having reserved places for cultural minorities when it comes to running for public office. An example of this is how Singapore prevents two people of the same cultural background amongst the Chinese, Indian, Malay (Muslim), and other communities from consecutively taking on the presidency of the republic (Channel NewsAsia, 2016). As a multiethnic and multicultural post-colonial nation, this can be regarded as a measure to ensure national unity, an aim which has also lead to the rejection of Western liberalism. This can be attested to by the government’s active censorship of publications that can be seen as provoking racial tensions or including pornographic content, outlawing chewing gums, and the reinforcement of judicial corporal punishment in the form of canning as a legacy of British colonial rule (Zhong, 2009). The efforts of the government of the majority Chinese city state to avoid any conflict with its Muslim Malay community, which is relatively more socially conservative, can be attributed to its historically uneasy relationship with its much larger majority Malay neighbor country Malaysia (Han, 2014). While this can be categorized as a form of (state) multiculturalism since the “the freedom of non-members” is effectively curtailed “in order to protect the minority group's culture” (Song, 2016), this still does not make Singapore a multicultural democratic state, which begs one to question as to what exactly does the liberal aspect of the political system entails. For Kymlicka (2007b, p.2), the liberal framework supposedly allows for the plurality of ways in which people with different cultural conceptions of “the good life” to pursue them accordingly. Implicit in this, as will also be discussed more in depth later on, is an egalitarian view of different cultures, at least in terms of dignity and deserving of equal respect. What this does not mean however, is a completely neutral or “blind” liberal approach to cultural minorities, which is rejected by both Kymlicka (2007b, p. 14) and Taylor (1992) but could be argued to be supported by Kukathas (2008). Indeed, the liberalism embedded within the multicultural democratic state in contrast to its illiberal counterpart as exemplified by the aforementioned city state of Singapore manifests itself in the former’s commitment to plurality and opposition to cultural and identitarian homogeneity. The Bilingual Policy in Singapore, which stipulated that students are required to learn English, a legacy of British colonisation, as their first language due to concerns regarding the economic competitiveness of its workforce and national unity, while providing courses for the native languages of each respective culture groups as second languages (Sim, 2016). In addition, the state also discouraged members of the Chinese cultural community from speaking their dialects in

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 22 favour of Standard Mandarin, which can be unintelligible to those with dialect speaking parents (Lim, 2013). One the other hand, although it is commonly misconceived that the United States’ official language is English due to its dominant role in politics by convention and civil society, the liberal democracy that institutes (state) multiculturalism has no de jure official language (USA.gov, 2017). While states can have official languages, they also accommodate their respective cultural minorities as can be seen the inclusion of candidate information in their languages on election ballots, which allows them to fully participate in the process without having to learn the language of the majority culture (New York State Attorney General, n.d.). This supposed commitment to plurality and not homogeneity could thus be argued to be the true defining characteristic of multicultural democratic states. That being said, despite allowing for different cultural groups to pursue “the good life” in their own ways within the liberal democratic framework, modern multicultural democratic states can still face challenges when it comes to dealing with cultural diversity. While this can be a result of the political processes that took place prior to their implementation of (state) multiculturalism, it can also be due to the latter’s narrowly conceived notion of what culture entails of which one is critical. In order to inquire into such problems then, one will in the next section present and discuss the ideas of multiculturalist political theorists, which have helped to provide the theoretical justifications for the multicultural democratic state.

3. Multiculturalist Political Theorists and Arguments

3.1 Kymlicka When it comes to the challenges faced by multicultural democratic states due to their sometimes illiberal pasts, the aforementioned distinction between national minorities and immigrant minorities has indeed been noted in Kymlicka’s (2007b) work in that the former has the possibility to engage in nation building within the framework of a liberal democratic state whereas the latter does not. As he contends, “[a]ll else being equal, national minorities should have the same tools of nation building available to them as the majority nation” within such a political framework (Kymlicka, 2007b, p. 10). The notion then that the immigrant minorities suffer from disadvantages within the nation building, which is as previously noted shared by other multiculturalist political theorists like Taylor (1992, p. 55-56) and Kymlicka, further contributes to justifying state multiculturalism. To elaborate, it could be argued that since there are not any discrepancies in terms of nation building rights between the national

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 23 majorities and minorities, the latter in comparison to the immigrant minorities could hardly be regarded as minorities at all but instead parts of the established majority culture. For example, while French Canadians, at least Quebecers, can hold independence referenda, immigrants would not be able to argue for the separation of the territory in which they live from other parts of Canada. This perceived tension between majority and minority cultures lies at the heart of the arguments of political theorists in favour of state multiculturalism and is coupled with the critique of the state as being non neutral, especially in a cultural sense, in order to justify the policies of “group-differentiated rights”, “recognition” and “accommodation”. At this point, one can already identify three problems with this theoretical framework. Firstly, the majority minority paradigm is not, as so far demonstrated, always rigid and unchangeable. In fact, as the comparison between national minorities and immigrant minorities highlights, the definition of minority status is indeed susceptible to demographic changes and how demographic statistics are produced. For example, while the United States Census Bureau (2015) treats “White” people as a monolith, the statistics of the “Asian” race contains subdivisions such as “Chinese”, “Filipino”, “Korean” and etc (. Furthermore, when one takes into consideration the previously established characteristics of culture, one has to question the implicit association between culture and ethnic/immigration background, which has inadequate consideration for the diversity within these groups by regarding them as homogenous collectives. Having heavily criticized the ethnonationalist collectivist views towards people and cultures, one must take issue with this overly simplistic paradigm, which also does not take into consideration the disadvantages that the non- immigration population might endure with the taken for granted notion that the state and its institutions are its favour. This is despite the justification that “ethnocultural minorities have not yet succumbed to liberal individualism, and so have maintained a coherent collective way of life” in Kymlicka’s (2007b, p. 3) work, which could be argued to some extent be valid. Even then, when one takes into consideration the mutability nature of culture, how can one say that overtime the immigrant minorities will not adopt a more individualist cultural framework in a voluntary manner as some of them might very well have migrated to Western liberal democracies on ideological grounds. In such an event, would they lose the “group- differentiated rights”, “recognition” and “accommodation” granted to them within the state- multiculturalist framework? Secondly, one must question as to how the state can determine people’s cultural and ethnic/racial identities in order to grant them special rights on these basis and how can exploitations of such systems be prevented. Let us consider the Affirmative Action programme for example, how would the United States’ government be

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 24 able to prevent newly arrived African immigrants from taking advantage of it as African Americans at the cost of those whose ancestors were subjected to slavery and Jim Crow laws States. How would the state alleviate the conflict that could potentially arise between the immigrant African Americans and those whose ancestors were brought to the United States against their free will if the latter were to view the former undeserving of the special rights that were intended to be accorded to them? In addition, at one point do people stop being immigrants? If they are to be regarded as permanent immigrants in any given society, would this not be counterintuitive to (state) multiculturalism’s noble aim of preventing the marginalization of cultural and ethnic/racial minorities? Thirdly, as presented in the introduction of this section and as Kymlicka (2007b, p. 1) observed how “Western democracies had not resolved or overcome the tensions raised by ethnocultural diversity”, state multiculturalism does not itself proactively generate cultural diversity, which it does not claim to do as far as the multiculturalist political theorists considered within the scope of this paper are concerned, but instead reacts to the problems that arise with cultural diversity in societies. At the heart of this problem, is the source of this diversity that is immigration, in most cases from non-Western countries justified on economic or humanitarian grounds by the governments who encourage and bring about such immigration instead of an organic process born out of civil society. Similar to one of the issues raised in the previous problem, the mutability nature of culture also would lead one to question as to how this “ethnocultural diversity” would be sustainable in the long run in any given society in the event of immigrants deciding to voluntarily adopt the cultures of the host nation and thus rendering the policy of (state) multiculturalism obsolete. Furthermore, as noted by political theorists in favour of (state) multiculturalism, there has indeed been demonstrable animosity and backlashes against the immigration policies that have led to the introduction of (state) multiculturalism. From the so called “Rivers of Blood” speech made by British politician Enoch Powell in its earlier days to the contemporary rise in right-wing nationalism across countries in which (state) multiculturalism has been implemented, one must also question as to how the political model could continue to be in force while respecting the principles of Western democracy (Taylor, 2015). Apart from such opposition against (state) multiculturalism rooted in nationalist sentiments, arguments can also be made regarding how anti-egalitarian it is to grant people rights simply based upon their cultural and ethnic/racial identities, which as will be demonstrated later on is considered by Taylor (1992, p. 43). Indeed, there has been increasing concerns regarding the compatibility between (state) multiculturalism as a result of immigration and some of the fundamental principles of

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 25 Western liberal democracies of which the most contentious being freedom of expression. This worry is illustrated by the following quote from Trevor Phillips (Channel 4 2017), former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) during the Tony Blair administration in the introduction to his documentary Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?.

“Across the western world, the political establishment is still reeling from a string of thumpings at the hands of outsiders it once mocked [...] but I think there are only so many times you can tell the electorate that you’re right and they’re wrong. Yet so far, my fellow losers haven’t even begun to come up with a new argument. Instead, they just try to silence the insurgent. They say, they’re protecting the oppressed. Indignant about Le Pen on Immigration, ban her from the BBC. Incensed by Trump on Islam, halt him at Heathrow. Bothered by provocative pouting posters on the underground, get transport chiefs to cover them up. This type of censorship isn’t protecting the vulnerable, it’s fueling the rise of the extreme left and the populist right. I fell out of love with my political tribe when they decided that the best way to protect diversity was to stifle debate, but I don’t think we’ll start a rational conversation about immigration or anything else by bullying people into silence.”

For those who are liberty minded and politically conscious, it will come as no surprise that a set of government policies based on benevolent intentions might have adverse effects on the very group that it has sought to help (Kroszner, 2015). It is both alarming and illuminating, however, when someone who used be to in charge of such policies comes to the startling realization that efforts must be made to correct these “unintended consequences” before it is all too late. While one would not take any issue with the fact that there are certain limits imposed upon free speech within Western liberal societies and that there is no absolute freedom of expression as even in the United States with its First Amendment the incitement of violence is not defended (Volokh, 2015), one must question the logic behind the erosion of free speech in the name of protecting the vulnerable cultural, religious and ethnic minorities in Western liberal democratic states. This skepticism is also echoed by the Trevor Phillips quote. In the quest to accommodate those who supposedly contribute to the cultural diversity of Western Europe, contentious opinions and concerns expressed by the native population that are at odds with the official state policy of multiculturalism have been subjected to restrictions (BBC News, 2016). The result of this, as highlighted by Trevor Phillips, has not been more protection for minorities cultures but instead the rise of extreme political forces

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 26 that would make cultural/ethnic minorities feel rather threatened. As will be discussed later on, the coming into power of politicians that are politically incorrect as epitomized by the election of Trump has not brought about more open and civil discussions regarding people’s cultural and identitarian differences but have instead contributed to the further escalation of political conflicts. That being said, in order to understand as to why what Trevor Phillips has noted has occurred within the framework of (state) multiculturalism, one must elaborate on its other key concept of “recognition”.

3.2 Taylor In Taylor’s The Politics of Recognition (1992, p. 25), the political theorist discusses in depth the concept of recognition with the departure point that “identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence”. Within the context of this paper, this means that it also pertains to culture, which as previously mentioned is related to identity. As a result of this, “misrecognition can inflict harm, can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being” (Taylor, 1992, p. 25). One could argue that this forms the basis of the restrictions placed upon negative portrayals or discussion of immigrant minorities that has been increasingly prevalent throughout the Western world. In order to amplify the point, Taylor makes use of the examples of colonial attitudes towards indigenous and non-white peoples. The reason as to why this is significant, Taylor (1992, p. 26) argues, is that recognition is “a vital human need” and its absence “can inflict a grievous wound, saddling its victims with a crippling self-hatred”. To elaborate, Taylor (1992, p. 27) contrasts the notion of recognition with that of honour “in the ancien régime sense in which it is intrinsically linked to inequalities”. It is then in this contrast that the egalitarian nature of the politics of recognition is highlighted. This is of great importance within the context of this paper as it is one of the main reasons for which the previously investigated ethno-nationalism rejects egalitarianism and multiculturalism with its cultural supremacist views, which also rejects having cultural diversity all-together on such a basis as it would entail “cultural contamination” (Goldstein, 2016). On the other side, this will also be of significance later on when one develops an anarcho-capitalist libertarian approach to culture and cultural diversity as the school of thought is also explicitly against egalitarianism to the extent that it is regarded as “a revolt against nature” (Rothbard, 2000). Indeed, as Taylor (1992, p. 37) dedicates a lengthy discussion to demonstrate, this “move from honor to dignity” aims to avoid “at all costs” “the existence of “first-class” and “second-class” citizens”. However, Taylor (1992, p. 38) also criticizes the so called “difference-blind” approach to “the politics

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 27 of equal dignity” as it is inadequate in recognizing the “unique identity” and “distinctness” of groups. While Taylor (199, p. 43) acknowledges that this might come into conflict with the previously established egalitarianism, he would justify that transcending beyond it is required due to the existing socio-economic structural factors that place certain groups at a disadvantage. In relation to the notion of equal dignity, the concept of “universal potential” is also elucidated in the text as “the potential for forming and defining one’s own identity, as an individual, and also as a culture”, which he argues “must be respected equally in everyone” (Taylor, 1992, p. 41-42). Implicit in this, then, is an egalitarian view of culture itself that could be argued to regard any negation of such a view as an absence of recognition and the rejection of equal dignity and “human equality”. This can be seen in the example critiquing Saul Bellow’s quote regarding the Zulus, which exemplifies “European or white domination, to the effect that they have not only suppressed but failed to appreciate other cultures”. When one takes into consideration the emphasis Taylor (1992, p. 63) places upon “the imposition of some cultures on others, and with the assumed superiority that powers this imposition” center to the current debate on multiculturalism, it would be uncontroversial to say that he is largely in accord with the previous critique. While one would not doubt Taylor’s commitment to human dignity, one takes great issue with several aspects of his framework. First of all, the mutable nature of culture and identity is not adequately taken into consideration throughout the text and thus absent in the “politics of recognition”, which makes it an inadequate approach to culture itself. Instead, the same collectivist view towards culture that one has critiqued so far persists. In addition, the concept of authenticity in terms of cultural and ethnic/racial identities is much too reminiscent of the notion of cultural and ethnic/racial purity espoused by the ethnonationalist alt-right for one to fully accept its compatibility with supposed commitment to plurality and the freedom of association at the heart of the multicultural democratic state. In a similar fashion to that of Kymlicka’s, this ill-conceived conceptualization of culture also fails to outline as to how can cultural and ethnic and ethnic/racial minorities be identified in order to grant them with special rights, especially if it were to be done by the state that is biased. As a result, this would allow for the minorities within certain communities to be subjected to the cultural identity accepted by the state but not necessarily the one with which they sympathize reminiscent of the shortcomings of the ethnonationalist nation building process discussed in the respective section. Secondly, the assumption that all cultures are of equal dignity and even value to humanity lacks justification, which is acknowledged by Taylor (1992, p. 66) that it is “by no means unproblematic, and involves something like an act of faith”. Indeed, this is problematic to say

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 28 the very least not only due the lack of a single standard by which the merits of cultures could be evaluated in order to arrive at the conclusion that they are of equal value. Furthermore, if one were to inquire into historical accounts, it would not be difficult to find examples of cultural groups being able to withstand outside influence and preserve itself in the face of conquest to the extent of even later on successfully assimilating their conquerors into adapting their cultural norms and societal institutions such as the Romans and Chinese (Cook, 2003, p. 65). As will be discussed later on in the section on cultural diversity, the diversity of the human race has always entailed inequalities of achievements and success whether one find them justifiable or not. While such phenomena would be viewed by ethno-nationalists as testaments of the cultural superiority of their respective cultures, they most certainly challenge the “act of faith” mentioned by Taylor. Even if Taylor were able to provide evidence of his egalitarian view of cultures, how would he then be able to reconcile the need for it to be universally accepted without contradicting his own objection to the imposition of a set of ideas upon others, which inevitably would create a power dynamic that would be antithetical to equal dignity? Also, despite Taylor’s efforts to deviate from approaching cultures with Western and European standards, he fell into the same trap as he fails to take into consideration non-European examples of cultural dominance and supremacist views such as the Chinese one discussed previously, which renders the supposed universality of recognition and dignity contestable. Evidently, this can be attributed to the Western liberal framework within which Taylor’s arguments operate. In addition, one could argue that this is in part a result of Taylor’s adoption of the association made between race/ethnicity and culture within the colonial context, which ironically, as noted in the previous section on ethno-nationalism is also shared by those who advocate for it but take the association to the absolute while rejecting egalitarianism. This obsession with racist colonial views that can be found in Taylor’s text and indeed within the larger debate on multiculturalism is ill-advised as cultural supremacist attitudes predates the modern notion of racism. An example of this evident in how the Romans and Chinese regarded outsiders as uncivilized and uncultured (Cook, 2003). Finally, as Taylor (1992, p. 71) is aware of, “the politics of difference can end up making everyone the same”. Unfortunately, he does not provide within the text any solution to the problem but instead refuses to abandon his commitment to equal dignity and recognition. If Taylor’s cautionary statement were to become reality, it would go against multiculturalists’ devotion to cultural diversity, which is another concept that was not discussed in depth in the text despite its importance to multiculturalism. It will thus have to be investigated in the following section focusing on the concept while highlighting its

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 29 incompatibility with the egalitarianism embedded in (state) multiculturalism and its limited view of culture.

4. Cultural Diversity

As demonstrated throughout this text so far, the concept of cultural diversity is very much at the heart of the theoretical framework of multiculturalism. Despite this however, there has been a lack of definition and conceptualization of cultural diversity, which has rendered it an idea very often taken for granted as far as the political theorists discussed in this paper are considered. As a result, discussions regarding its political and economic impact on the wider society can be dictated not by well-constructed arguments but rather discrepancies amongst the different understandings of what cultural diversity entails. In addition, this also renders the task of critically evaluating the arguments of multiculturalists political theorists and the political system for which they advocate in terms of how well it allows for cultural diversity to flourish in a sustainable manner extra difficult. Furthermore, the previously noted questionable association between race/ethnicity and culture to varying extents including the interchangeable use of the two terms, which is not uncommon across the political spectrum also renders debates on the subject matter increasingly contentious and controversial provoking criticisms of racism. Following the procedure previously taken to establish a comprehensive conceptualization of culture itself, this section will also commence with a generalized definition of cultural diversity before considering the arguments pertaining to it made by multicultural political theorists while being cognizant of how it manifests itself in real life societies. In order to inquire into a generalized definition of cultural diversity, one has chosen to look to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO.org, 2001). The reason as to why this document is chosen is not only due to it being a one of a kind piece of document on the subject matter of cultural diversity but also due to its aim to provide an as universal as possible framework for dealing with cultural diversity, which must be taken into consideration in order to answer the research question at stake as the phenomenon does not manifest itself in only one particular country or society but across the globe to varying extents. That being said, since the document is not a text within the field of political theory after all, only the articles pertaining to the subject matter of this paper are taken into consideration. The very first article of this declaration, which is rather self-explanatory, stipulates that “[c]ulture takes diverse forms across time and space. This diversity is

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 30 embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind” (UNESCO.org, 2001). Based on this statement, one can say that the previously established identity aspect of culture is substantiated and thus cultural diversity could be argued to be first and foremost the diversity of identities. Furthermore, cultural diversity is regarded as “a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature” (UNESCO.org, 2001). This, is argued to be “the common heritage of humanity and should be recognized and affirmed for the benefit of present and future generations” (UNESCO.org, 2001), which is reminiscent of Taylor’s (1992) argument for recognition on the basis of human dignity. In the second article, the importance to “ensure harmonious interaction among people and groups with plural, varied and dynamic cultural identities as well as their willingness to live together” is emphasized with consideration for its importance within the context of democratic societies entailing “the inclusion and participation of all citizens”. This statement evidently takes into consideration the potential for conflict and division that cultural diversity can have as noted in the introduction. While the defence of cultural diversity is stressed as being ethical, necessitating “a commitment to human rights and fundamental , in particular the rights of persons belonging to minorities and those of indigenous peoples” in the fourth article, the former is said to must not be at the expense of the latter. The implicit concern regarding the tension that can arise between cultural diversity and freedom expressed within this statement echoes Trevor Phillips’ observations about the rise of political correctness at the expense of the freedom of expression in the name of multiculturalism (Channel 4, 2017). In the next article, several cultural rights that are supposed to ensure the “flourishing of creative diversity” are outlined, namely “the right to express themselves and to create and disseminate their work in the language of their choice, and particularly in their mother tongue” and “right to participate in the cultural life of their choice and conduct their own cultural practices, subject to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Regarding the first right, one has to some extent highlighted the devastating loss of culture that can be resulted by the implementation of arbitrary language policies in the discussion about Chiang Kai- Shek’s regime in Taiwan (Klöter, 2014). As for the second right, the argument against the ethno-nationalist authoritarian state is substantiated since the political system cannot avoid infringing upon liberty in the name of cultural practices. In article six, the importance of “the free flow of ideas” is once again stressed while also stating that “the possibility for all cultures to have access to the means of expression and dissemination are the guarantees of cultural diversity”. Although the latter might seem self-explanatory, its achievability within

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 31 the current multiculturalist democratic framework in which cultural diversity can be found must be questioned when one takes into consideration the previously discussed problem with the state’s lack of neutrality. As a result, one will later on have to look at how the anarcho- capitalist libertarian theoretical framework can deal with this particular problem related to cultural diversity. As for the rest of the articles, they were not taken into consideration for the purpose of this paper as their statements regarding creativity, cultural goods, and international solidarity with the mandate of UNESCO are irrelevant to the research question. While some connections to the analysis of culture established in the previous section were made in the presentation of the UNESCO document, its implication for what cultural diversity entails will now have to be discussed in greater detail.

As mentioned in the beginning of this section, many of those partaking in the political debate regarding culture, most explicitly the ethnonationalist alt-right, have the tendency to equate or at least associate race/ethnicity and culture while arguing that the homogeneity of the former is coupled with the homogeneity of the latter. The section dedicated to the discussion of the ethno nationalist authoritarian state has however, demonstrated this to be false as racially/ethnically homogenous groups such as the Chinese and German can have tremendous degrees of diversity amongst them as exemplified by the existence of mutually unintelligible dialects and religious divisions. If the equivalency drawn between race/ethnicity and culture were to be true, the degrees of diversity amongst racially/ethnically homogenous peoples would have to be coupled with the same degrees of racial/ethnic diversity, which is not the case. Furthermore, it is evident that immigrant groups that have left their countries of origins centuries ago, for example European immigrants in North America, might be racially/ethnically similar to the peoples of their home countries, culturally speaking they can literally be worlds apart. As a result, one can establish that cultural diversity does not require racial/ethnic diversity to exist and the presence of the latter does not automatically generate the presence of the former. The implication of this would then be that (state) multiculturalist policies in favour of diverse representations of races/ethnicities at public institutions such as educational facilities, and state broadcasting based upon the assumption that these will foster cultural diversity are not only ill-advised but also unjustifiable. Unfortunately, given the current political climate, arguing against this case can be rather controversial as can be attested to by the case of Apple’s vice president for diversity and inclusion who is an African American woman’s dismissal due to her comments on how a “room of 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men could be diverse”, which apparently offended people. Ironically, this person who

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 32 has worked at Apple for two decades has since been replaced by a blue-eyed, blonde person (Alexander, 2017). Nevertheless, there has not been a lack of criticism towards such policies coming from libertarian leaning thinkers amongst whom the most vocal are the African American scholars Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell briefly referred to in the section on culture. In an article titled The ‘Diversity’ Fraud, Dr. Sowell (2016) presented the early twentieth century case of enforcing covert anti-Semitism in the name of (geographic) diversity as “the Jewish population was concentrated in New York and other east coast communities at that time, quota limits on how many Jewish students would be admitted were concealed by saying that Harvard wanted a diverse student body, consisting of students from around the country”. Being vehemently opposed to racial/ethnic quotas, Dr. Sowell also highlights its modern parallel of the higher test score requirements for Asian American students at universities in order to ensure the so called diversity embodied by the arbitrarily equalized representation of different races/ethnicities. At the heart of this, is the emphasis placed upon the individual rather than the collective by libertarians from whom Dr. Sowell draws his intellectual influences, which will be elaborated later on in the section on anarcho- capitalist libertarianism. Holding similar views to his colleague, Dr. Williams (2016) is also aware of the irony of the discrimination faced by certain racial/ethnic minorities in the name of diversity and attempts to reflect the demographic makeup of the population. In addition however, Dr. Williams also notes that while human diversity can manifest itself in the overrepresentation of a racial/ethnic group in one field, it can also entail the underrepresentation of this particular group in another field. While the discriminatory nature of certain policies aimed at promoting diversity highlighted by the two scholars is noteworthy, what is of greater importance for the purpose of this paper is their observation that diversity is often coupled with inequality. Furthermore, if one takes into consideration the link between culture and economic advancement made by the Dr. Sowell (2016) and Dr. Williams (2016), this would mean that cultural diversity would also manifest itself in the economic disparities amongst different cultural groups. Although as established in the section on culture, there are no objective standards by which we could evaluate different cultures, it is also evident that at least in some aspects such as in academia or in the economic marketplace, not all cultures are equal. While this contention alone would be extremely problematic for the egalitarian (state) multiculturalist political theorists such as Taylor and Kymlicka, Dr. Williams (2011) and Dr. Sowell’s (1983) suggestion for the academically and economically speaking, relatively underperforming cultural groups, to adopt certain aspects of the cultures of the so called overachievers, such as the emphasis placed upon the traditional family structure and child

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 33 education, would be completely unacceptable to the former two theorists. The reason as to why one would expect such a response from an egalitarian (state) multiculturalist theorist like Taylor (1992, p. 38) is that this would be regarded as a betrayal of the authenticity component of identity, which is also anti-assimilationist at its core. Interestingly enough, family and education, as mentioned in the section on culture, have also played an important role in the preservation and the continuation of culture itself. Despite for the different reason of maintaining an elusive cultural purity as previously discussed, the ethnonationalist alt-right would also reject people’s adoption of cultures that are not associated with their ethnic/racial identities. However, as elucidated in the section on culture, this is rooted in a conception of culture that views it as fixed rather than fluid or mutable as demonstrated in Kukathas’ (2003) work. Furthermore, while egalitarian (state) multiculturalists place a significant emphasis upon the respect and recognition of the equal dignity of cultures, even they do not claim that all cultures are equally good at doing the same thing, which as previously demonstrated would not reflect the realities of the world we live in. Although one can find no moral grounds upon which the imposition of the practices of one cultural group upon another through the use of coercive force, one finds the objection to the voluntary adoption of cultural practices across different groups rooted in a conception of culture divorced from reality to be ill-advised. After all, cultural exchanges are inevitable when there is cultural diversity as echoed by the first article of the previously mentioned UNESCO document and historically has not required for the cultural diversity be present within the confines of a single state or country. Considering all of this, on can once again question the extent to which the multicultural democratic state is a positive environment for cultural diversity and the justifiability of state actions of “recognition” and “accommodation” advocated by multiculturalist political theorists, which also encourage immigration as a source of cultural diversity as argued by the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Reilly, 2017). Indeed, in a speech made by Dr. Sowell (n.d.) on cultural diversity, a wide array of examples of such cultural exchanges thanks to the cultural diversity amongst mankind is presented from the Western adoption of Chinese printing techniques to the abandonment of Roman numerals from countries that were historically culturally Roman in favor of Arabic numerals, which had influences from the Indian subcontinent. In addition to this, one can also note the Japanese adoption of traditional Chinese scriptures, which the former call Kanji, due to the Japan’s lack of a written language to the countless examples of cultural exchanges, which then helped the Japanese to better develop and preserve their own culture. As noted by Kukathas (2008, p. 32), “no nation has been able to escape the forces of cultural

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 34 transformation”. In stark contrast to modern (state) multiculturalism, these perpetuations of cultural diversity took place in the absence of large scale immigration between the countries of origins of these cultures. Needless to say, modern state instruments such as state broadcasting companies that have been given the task of promoting cultural diversity did not exist back then either. The implication of this within the context of this paper would then be that the arguments of (state) multiculturalists in favour of more state action in order to foster cultural diversity cannot be accepted without any scrutiny to say the very least, which in turn renders the anarcho-capitalist libertarian approach to cultural diversity that will be developed more pertinent. On the other hand, even when states enacted draconian policies to prevent racial/ethnic mixing and cultural exchanges such as the Jim Crow laws in the Southern United States and the Apartheid in South Africa, communications between different cultural groups were not completely suspended.

Having discussed the relatively positive aspects of cultural diversity, namely the cultural exchanges that can be beneficial to those taking part in them and allowing people to adopt better means to develop and preserve their own cultures, one will now look at the negative aspects of cultural diversity. As briefly allude to in the introduction with the example of the breakup of Yugoslavia, there have historically been countless occurrences of violence and aggression that coincided with demonstrable racial/ethnic and cultural diversity. Indeed, this concern as previously mentioned was also taken into consideration in the UNESCO document, which is unsurprising considering the organization that produced the document was born in the aftermath of the worse human conflict during which the National Socialists committed ethnic cleansing on cultural grounds. While none of these incidents took place in the liberal democratic societies within which modern (state) multiculturalism operates, this does not mean that the political system is immune to the problems associated with culturally diverse societies. Indeed, as also noted in the introduction, the rise of, or rather the resurgence, of identitarian politics across the Western world has coincided with the rise of both violent and nonviolent conflicts between different groups rooted in their cultural identities that the state seems increasingly incapable of de-escalating. One of the logical reactions to this would then be to limit instead of further expanding the role of the state in fostering cultural diversity and other cultural developments.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 35 4.1 Kukathas’ Classical Liberal Multiculturalism Indeed, in an ideal world as envisioned by Kukathas (2003, p. 213) and many other non- anarchist libertarians, the state is supposed to play the role of an “umpire” and “arbiter” that enforces the rules of the game so to speak by guaranteeing the basic rights of its citizens and prevent abuses and aggressions from being committed. As noted in his discussion dedicated to devising a classical liberal framework for dealing with multiculturalism, “[w]hen people from diverse traditions have to coexist within a single society, a number of issues have to be settled so that the ground rules governing their common life are clear and generally accepted” (Kukathas, 2008, p. 29). He also notes, however, that this is no easy task since “[t]he fact of cultural diversity has often given rise to conflicts because these issues are not always easily settled”, which corroborates with the observations made in this paper and the examples of ethnic violence that have been presented (Kukathas, 2008, p. 30). Having evaluated different non-classical liberal approaches to cultural diversity, namely “isolationism”, “assimilationism”, “strong or eager multiculturalism” or, and apartheid”, Kukathas (Kukathas, 2008, p. 34) rejects all of these with the main argument that such approaches to multiculturalism are not sustainable in the long run. The way in which he evaluates these different approaches and provides his critique is similar to the way in which this paper has operated and provided the latter with a great deal of inspiration. The “isolationism” analyzed by Kukathas (2008, p. 32), for example, is akin to the ideology espoused by alt-right ethnonationalist being analyzed in this paper as both place an emphasis on “cultural homogeneity”. Taking inspiration from ’s , Kukathas (2008, p. 37) demonstrates that modern concerns about cultural diversity and conflict are not at all incompatible with the “fundamental liberal concern” to “find some way in which those who hold to different values might live together without coming into conflict”. By making use of Mill’s variant of classical liberalism, Kukathas also considers the problematic nature of the ambiguity of the harm principle, which will be discussed in greater detail in the later section on anarcho-capitalist libertarianism of this paper, but does not regard it as an insurmountable obstacle to the realization of classical liberal multiculturalism. In such a society, “when people disagree about what is good and what is right, the issue should not be settled by the exercise of power to enforce the dominant view” (Kukathas, 2008, p. 38). While he contends that such a society would only be possible “provided each respects a similar freedom for others”, Kukathas later on also concedes that the society “may contain within it many illiberal elements”. This is not only logically inconsistent but also reveals the potential for the societal structure to be undermined by its illiberal elements, which does not

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 36 truly prevent conflict from arising out of cultural diversity. To elaborate, members of illiberal cultures would have no reason to respect classical liberal principles and might seek to eventually dominate those who respect such principles in a society where all of these cultures coexist. Furthermore, such a society “will try neither to expel nor to assimilate them, but will simply tolerate them”. As a result, such a system would be no different from the other approaches to cultural diversity previously rejected by Kukathas as it would also be unsustainable and susceptible to being transformed into an illiberal society. Indeed, Kukathas (2008, p. 42) is well aware of the contradictory nature of his proposed political system as it in his words “seems at once to demand an impossibly high standard—a standard of complete tolerance—and, at the same time, no standard at all, since any kind of cultural community or tradition must be accepted as a part of the polity”. That being said, this is still not the greatest obstacle to the realization of such a system as far as Kukathas is concerned. Instead, he stipulates that it is “unlikely ever to be found in the real world of politics” because “there cannot be such a thing as a political regime that is morally or culturally neutral”. While this comes as no surprise when one takes into consideration his sympathies for libertarianism and his conceptualization of the state as “with interests of its own” (2003, p. 214), Kukathas’ discussion further strengthens the importance of the task that this paper has chosen to take upon in devising an approach to cultural diversity that does not involve the state.

4.2 The Problems of Cultural Diversity Indeed, in reality, the governments of liberal democratic societies in which (state) multiculturalism is in practice appear to be selectively reinforcing their laws by avoiding to offend certain cultural groups but not the others. Examples of this range from the incompetence of university officials to uphold the freedom of expression of invited speakers with controversial opinions (Dwoskin et al., 2017) to the crimes targeting specific ethnic/racial due to differences in cultural attitudes being covered up in fear of facing accusations of racism (Hodges, 2015). In light of all of this, it then comes as no surprise that different political groups would regard themselves as each other’s victims while at the very same time trying to use the institution of the state and its monopoly on the use of coercive force to their respective advantages. Indeed, when one considers the rising security costs for events in which free speech advocates and right wing speakers participate due to the threat of violent disruption coming from far left political activists (Simon, 2017), it would be no exaggeration to say that the former actors have been effectively reduced to some kind of second class citizens as they need to bear an additional financial burden in order to simply

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 37 exercise one of their fundamental rights. What is also problematic, is the existence of a double standard when it comes to hate speech and offensive speech in the sense that not all persons who make statements that can be perceived as hateful will be treated in the same manner by the state (Murray, 2013). As previously mentioned in the section on culture, this would be vehemently opposed by (state) multiculturalist political theorists such as Taylor (1992, p. 38) although they probably would find any racist comments abhorrent if they were to be consistent. Unfortunately such behaviours have also been mirrored by actors on social media platforms created by private companies such as Twitter, Google and Facebook, which all have been far from politically impartial considering what political parties to which they donate funds during campaigns (Caplan, 2017). While one cannot fault these private companies for having political preferences to which they are well entitled, their ability to remove users not for violating any law but for their controversial views makes one further question the competence of the state in upholding one’s right to free speech. As those who support (state) multiculturalism due to their culturally rooted views attempt to influence public opinion by being represented in the media and academia, those who reject it as exemplified by the right makes use of the democratic system to acquire political power. The election of Donald Trump and the violent protests it inspired however, have demonstrated how the political system is incapable of resolving the differences between different cultural identity groups in a peaceful manner (AndersonSchoepe, 2017). The reason as to why this is could be explained in two fold. Firstly, despite not having elected Trump, those who oppose to him due to their cultural views and identities still have to live under his presidency so long as they reside in the country as this is how a democracy operates. Secondly, the right to exit of his opponents are not guaranteed in the sense that the areas in which those who oppose to him due to their cultural identities cannot declare independence nor engage in succession without potentially facing the coercive force of the state as noted in the introduction. As a result, these people cannot be their authentic selves as they are still being governed by people with opposing cultural views and identities. While a liberal democratic system can have the advantage of having institutions and mechanisms in place to prevent the ruling party from violating the rights of those who did not vote it into power, people identifying with the former also cannot be their authentic selves as their leaders must act as appropriately as possible according to their elected role of representing and unifying the country. However, as the aftermath of Trump’s election can once again demonstrate, many of those who did not vote for him regard him as illegitimate and more importantly for this paper, unrepresentative of them, which is difficult to argue against considering the differences in their views of the

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 38 world (West, 2017). As a result, the system proves to be inadequate in reconciling the cultural differences between various groups, which makes the potential of an anarcho- capitalist libertarian alternative approach more interesting as will be demonstrated later on, the theoretical framework is both pro-secession and against electoral democracy.

At this point, one would not be immune to the criticism that the problems mentioned so far are not representative of cultural diversity itself but rather how it is mismanaged by the current political system, which would not be invalid. However, if one were to take a closer look at the issue, one would be able to notice that these problems are manifestations of people’s will to preserve and maintain the uniqueness of their cultures that, as echoed by the first article of the UNESCO document, make up the cultural diversity of mankind. It then ought not come as a surprise that they would resist involuntary integration while preferring to congregate with and live amongst those who share similar cultural values and identities (Pearson, 2015). If no justifications for the involuntary separation of people that want to engage in cultural exchanges can be made on moral grounds, then the opposite, the involuntary integration of people that do not wish to engage with each other ought not to be anymore morally justifiable so long as both are done in a peaceful manner. Indeed, the Amish population in the United States provides a prominent example of a people being able to exercise their right to be voluntarily separated from the rest of the society in which they live in order to preserve their own culture and unique identity (Kukathas, 2003, p. 230-231). Even (state) multiculturalists who value cultural diversity but not necessarily condone voluntary segregation would not argue in favour of the assimilation of cultural groups with unique identities to the majority culture society. However, this right has not been able to be extended to other groups and is unlikely to be done so as it would inevitably lead to the gradual breakup on the country. While such tensions are more observable in a liberal democratic society due to the freedoms that are guaranteed by the political system, even authoritarian regimes that rule over culturally diverse populations fail to completely prevent the rise of separatist movements. A relatively peaceful example of this is the Tibetan independence movement in Communist China (Dalai Lama, 1987) and a violent example would be the Chechen separatists in Russia (Muratov, 2014) with both being reacted against by the power of their respective states. As history can attest to so far however, authoritarian regimes for a wide array of reasons beyond the scope of this paper cannot last forever, and when they do finally collapse, the previously unresolved tensions between culture groups can bring about a civil war in the absence an albeit abusive state to maintain social order. Such was precisely

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 39 the case of the former Yugoslavia and several post-colonial societies such as India. As a result, it is of imperative nature that there must be peaceful and nonviolent means for culturally diverse peoples to go their own ways if they wish to as the preservation and continuation of culture requires peace and stability. However, in light of the recent violent reaction of the Spanish state’s to the Catalan independence movement and the imprisonment of members of the local government (Jones, 2017), there are few reasons to be optimistic about the future prospects of secessionists movements in both liberal democratic and authoritarian states. The implication of this is then that the chief task of this paper of theorizing an alternative political system that allows for cultural diversity to develop without a state defined by the existence of a centralized authority is rendered even more pertinent to the greater debate regarding culturally diverse societies. After all, few countries are willing to commit to ensuring the right of their people to engage in regional secession. Furthermore, even in the event of such a right being guaranteed, given that the vast majority of states do not adhere to such principles, the seceded region would unlikely be able to obtain international recognition of its sovereignty or be accepted into a union with a state that it shares closer cultural identification. An example of this is the 1919 attempt of the Austrian region of Vorarlberg to join the Swiss Confederation (Weber, 2016).

As one arrives at the end of this section, one can establish several characteristics of cultural diversity and what it entails. First and foremost, the basic nature of cultural diversity indeed reflects the previously established nature of culture itself in that it means the plurality and the diversity of cultures, identities and memberships. What it does not mean nor does it necessitate, contrary to popular belief, the plurality and diversity of races/ethnicities. Secondly, all throughout history, the cultural diversity of mankind has allowed for both voluntary and involuntary cultural exchanges to take place whereas the former has been mutually beneficial to all parties taking part in the exchanges. As a result of this cultural diversity, not all cultures have been able to achieve the same level of socio-political and economic development, which in turn incentivizes voluntary cultural exchanges in order to contribute to the betterment of general human living standards and innovation. All of this, took place in the absence of the policies and institutions inspired by the theoretical framework of (state) multiculturalist. Thirdly, cultural diversity has also historically coincided with both violent and nonviolent conflicts between people who have different cultural views and identities but refuse to engage in involuntary cultural exchanges and integration. While the modern liberal democratic state has been able to significantly alleviate

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 40 and mediate these conflicts in contrast to its illiberal counterparts, it does not allow for people to be their “authentic” selves by being to exit the society and refuse integration at will in order to preserve their culture and uniqueness. To conclude, given what has been established about cultural diversity within this paper, one is led question the necessity of the institution of the liberal democratic state and any state with a central authority at all in order to foster cultural diversity. Considering all the above, one has also arrived at the conclusion that the arguments of multicultural political theorists and the political system that they defend are not as compatible with what cultural diversity entails when one rejects their limited conceptualization of culture and cultural identity. Finally, one can now turn to presenting the theoretical framework of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism and then proceed to theorize how it would approach culture and cultural diversity as established in this paper.

5. Anarcho-capitalist Libertarianism

“To live liberty, we must realize and demonstrate to the world that libertarian theory can be brought sharply to bear upon all of the world's crucial problems” (Rothbard, 2002, p. 115).

In the beginning of this research project, one expressed grave concerns about the current state of political affairs in the Western world due to the resurgence of identitarian politics across the political spectrum and the limits of the ability of multicultural democratic state to curtail the conflicts that have been correlated to cultural diversity. What has been demonstrated thus far, is that the existing political arrangements of the multicultural democratic state that were in reaction to the shortcomings of their Western democratic nation state predecessors and indeed other political entities that have existed throughout history still struggle to deal with the negative aspects of cultural diversity such as political conflicts and violence. As a result, one finds it justified and important to the field of political theory and political science to hypothesize the capacity of a political system that has never truly existed in providing possible solutions to the problems associated with cultural diversity. To clarify, although there has been political systems and political leaders that have to varying extents brought about the implementation of policies inspired by libertarian ideas such as the right to secession guaranteed in Liechtenstein (Fuerstenhaus.li, 2017) and the Thatcher revolution that had direct influences from F.A. Hayek (Margaret Thatcher Foundation, 2017), no society known to date has ever been based upon the principles of libertarianism, not to mention the anarcho-capitalist variant of the school of thought.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 41

Libertarianism, in general, describes a set of political ideologies that is centered around a “concern for individual liberty, or more precisely individual self-determination above all else” (Wissenburg, 2011: 4). What both left (non-capitalist) and right (capitalist) libertarianism agree upon, are limitations to the power of the state, the emphasis on voluntary association and the primacy of the individual. What distinguishes right (capitalist) libertarianism from its leftist counterpart the most is its view towards natural resources and the appropriation of them. That being said, left-libertarians oppose the assertion of their capitalist counterparts that mixing one’s labour with natural resources such as land and claiming it grants one full rights of that resource and thus reject the Lockean proviso. Instead, left- libertarians would argue for an egalitarian appropriation of all natural resources or to for them be under some form of collective ownership that allows all members of a society equal access to them (Vallentyne, 2000). The anarcho-capitalist variant of libertarianism due to its ardent defense of private property rights can be categorized as a form a right-libertarianism. Before presenting the theoretical framework with which one intends to approach the cultural diversity problem discussed so far, however, one must further delineate between two types of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, the consequentialist variant and the natural rightist one. While the former school of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is most famously advocated by the American economist David D. Friedman (1995) who argues for the abolition of the state for the theoretical positive outcomes of such a change, the latter espoused by and his associates regard the state as a morally unjustifiable institution as it inevitably violates one’s natural rights. That being said, although the former rejects the latter’s apriorism, Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist libertarianism would not regard the potential positive outcomes of the political system as invalid grounds upon which the adoption of it can be justified. Instead, it can be seen as complementary to the arguments in favour of the system rooted in apriori principles. The reason as to why the distinction between the two variants is of great importance within the context of this paper lies within their respective implications for the defence of the freedom of expression, which when suppressed, as previously discussed, can result in the loss of culture and cultural diversity. To elaborate, if one were to defend the right to free speech on the consequentialist grounds in a similar fashion to that of the classical liberal thinker John Stuart Mill cited in Kukathas’ work (2008, p. 37), one would argue how it is the guarantor of all the other freedoms that a free society ought to have. The first problem with this approach as alluded to previously is that the cultural diversity of mankind entails varying degrees to which freedom is valued, which

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 42 means that not all members of a cultural diversity are going to prioritize liberty over other needs such as security and comfort. Secondly, if one takes into consideration Mill’s Harm Principle, which stipulates “that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Kukathas, 2008, p. 37), one must then be open to the possibility of curtailing the freedom of expression. Indeed, the lack of clarity regarding as to what constitutes harm and the problematic nature of this has not gone unnoticed as can be seen in Kukathas’ formulation of a classical liberal, especially when one considers the lack of neutrality of the state. As a result, such a consequentialist approach to the freedom of expression would not resolve the concerns raised by Trevor Phillips regarding (state) multiculturalism and its acceptance of curtailing free speech in order to protect the dignity of cultural minorities. That being said, although one cannot arrive at the conclusion that all consequentialists would adhere to such a logic, it is certainly incompatible with the Rothbardian view of the freedom of expression as an inalienable natural right (Rothbard, 2006, p. 115). Indeed, one cannot imagine a world in which Rothbard would be in accord with David D. Friedman’s (1995) contention that the Federal Communications Commission of the United States’ ruling that “songs that seem to advocate drug use may not be broadcast” is not an infringement upon free speech. Now that one has distinguished between the anarcho-capitalist libertarianism central to this paper and its consequentialist counterpart, one can proceed to explaining as to what natural rights entail.

5.1 Natural law, Natural rights, and the Freedom of Expression In Rothbard’s (2006, p. 4) magnum opus : The Libertarian Manifesto originally published in 1973, the classical liberal roots of libertarianism are retraced to the Lockean tradition of “natural rights of each individual to his person and property” while “the purpose of government was strictly limited to defending such rights”. By comparing this tradition to its utilitarian counterpart, Rothbard (2006, p. 19) laments the abandonment of former on grounds similar to the previous comparison between the different variants of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism. This is then the reason as to why the Rothbardian view of natural rights is more akin to that of Locke’s, which also defends a person’s right to private property and its acquisition through if one has “mixed his labour with” an unowned natural resource and thus effectively privatizing it by making it “something that is his own” (Rothbard, 2006, p. 37). Furthermore, Rothbard (2006, p. 33) presents a particular view of nature, which stipulates that “[s]ince men can think, feel, evaluate, and act only as individuals, it becomes vitally necessary for each man’s survival and prosperity that he be free to learn,

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 43 choose, develop his faculties, and act upon his knowledge and values”. As a result, “[v]iolent interference with a man’s learning and choices” is to be considered as fundamentally “antihuman”, which constitutes a violation of one’s natural rights. Here it must be noted that although reason plays a significant role in the devising of the natural law framework, it is not assumed that all humans are rational or reasonable. In Rothbard’s later work The Ethics of Liberty (1998), the theoretical framework is further elaborated. In contrast to the positive law “imposed by the state”, the existence of natural law and natural rights are seen to be independent of the existence of a state (Rothbard, 1998, p. 17). That being said, as previously mentioned, this does not mean that a state cannot be given the task of enforcing natural law and protecting the natural rights of its citizens. Indeed, the most prominent example of this can be found in the United States Declaration of Independence and the United States Bill of Rights. In the former, the concept of natural law is explicitly stated and the notion that people have natural rights or “unalienable rights” is expressed while in the latter more provisions are made to prevent the state from depriving people of their natural rights. Indeed, the role of the idea natural law in the is also taken into consideration by Rothbard (1998, p. 23). Taking this example into consideration, one would not be surprised if the reader at this point might find the concept of natural law similar to a belief in divinity and natural rights akin to so called god given rights despite their enlightenment roots. As far as Rothbard (2006, p. 32) is concerned, this is no cause for controversy as “the natural-rights libertarian cheerfully admits to being “doctrinaire”, to being, in short, an unabashed follower of his own doctrines”. Furthermore, libertarianism is not by any means anti-religious so long as theists do not impose their views on other people nor engage in violence in the name of their beliefs. Indeed, being a libertarian and being a theist are not mutually exclusive as can be attested to by the example of the US congressman (2017) who knew Rothbard personally and was greatly influenced by his ideas but still remains an anti-abortion religious Christian. Despite this and Rothbard’s (2006, p. 132) view of abortion as not immoral, Ron Paul (2009) maintains the view that “government should not play any role in the abortion issue”. This example further demonstrates that even amongst natural-rights capitalist libertarians, there can be a significant degree of diversity of thought. The implication of all of this within the context of this paper is then that in the hypothetical society based upon natural rights anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, the conceptualization of freedom of expression, which is required for the preservation of culture and cultural diversity, must also be one rooted in the ideas of natural law. As mentioned in the introduction, the uniqueness of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and its upholding has historically allowed

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 44 for the United States to provide an environment for the free expression of political and religious views that has not been available elsewhere, especially in Europe. As stipulated in this article of the Bill of Rights drafted by , legislations that impede upon “the free exercise thereof; or abridging the , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” are explicitly prohibited. This negative approach that aimed to limit the power of the state to infringe upon the individual liberty of people rather than granting the state the power to punish those whom it regards as preventing others from exercising their freedom of expression as previously demonstrated has been explicitly inspired by the natural rightist views espoused by the Founding Fathers (Antieau, 1960). In addition, contrary to common misconception, the First Amendment does indeed protect “the right to express discriminatory viewpoints”, which could be considered hate speech in Europe (Volokh, 2015; Hague, 2016). However, this is not to say that there are absolutely no limits to the freedom of expression within the framework of the First Amendment. Fighting words, generally interpreted as “[w]ords which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence” are protected to a lesser extent and sometimes not protected at all such as in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire in 1942 (Volokh, 2015). For the purpose of this paper, the framework of the First Amendment is largely adopted as the formal conceptualization of the freedom of expression in that “[o]ne is as free to condemn, for instance, Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal immigrants, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or socialism or Democrats or Republicans” (Volokh, 2015). Respectively, expressions that lead to physical violence and aggression are not to be considered as acts of one’s freedom of expression. Evidently, this does not mean that people would not be able to react to views and expressions that they may find offensive nor does it mean that the exercise of the freedom would be devoid of consequences in a hypothetical society based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarianism. What this does mean instead, is that nobody would be physically punished for simply expressing an unfavourable or controversial opinion. Indeed, when one furthermore takes into consideration the anarchic nature of such a society in the sense that there would not be a centralized state authority that monopolizes the use of coercive force, there would be no means for censorship to be enforced. In a similar fashion to how private internet companies that host online forums and etc. are free to remove users who express opinions and post contents that might be perceived as inflammatory or offensive within the currently existing multicultural democratic states, they would not be pressured into doing so by the state in an anarcho-capitalist society and would suffer

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 45 economic losses. The reason as to why a great deal of emphasis is placed upon this particular natural right, although could be argued from a consequentialist perspective as a guarantor of people’s other natural rights in the Millian tradition as noted in Kukathas’ work (2008, p. 37), is also due to the cultural importance of people to freely express themselves as established in the previous sections. As noted in the section critiquing the ethnonationalism, the suppression of such a right can indeed lead to the loss of cultures. Additionally, there is also the problem regarding what definition of offensive ideas and speeches ought to be adopted and how can limits placed upon the freedom of expression based on such a definition could be reinforced in an indiscriminate manner as can be attested to the by some of the double standards on hate speech in Europe (Murray, 2013). As will be discussed in more detail later on, since such an anarcho-capitalist libertarian society would only accept members that voluntarily join it and adhere to its principles, there would be no discrepancies regarding to what extent the freedom of expression would be exercised and thus guaranteeing a maximum degree of such freedom. Continuing within the framework of natural rights, one will now elucidate the concept of self- ownership, which is also of integral to anarcho-capitalist libertarianism and its cardinal principle of non-aggression.

5.2 Self-ownership As alluded to early on in the introduction, libertarians by definition are to say the very least skeptical of the institution of the state while the anarcho-capitalist variant outright rejects the legitimacy for such an institution to exist. However, this is not due to some arbitrary disdain for the state nor due to some dogmatic belief in the free-market on the behalf of libertarians. Instead, this is because of the view that the existence of an institution that monopolizes the use of coercive force will inevitably infringe upon one’s natural rights. This is also the reason as to why one has made the deliberate choice of referring to the anarchistic school of thought being discussed as anarcho-capitalist libertarianism rather than simply anarcho-capitalism. If someone were to be able to devise a political system that upholds all libertarian principles while still having a state in place, anarcho-capitalists would no longer have any valid reasons reject the institution of the state.

Placing a great deal of emphasis on private property rights, anarcho-capitalist libertarians of the Rothbardian tradition argue that a person first and foremost has absolute ownership of his or her own body. Also referred to as the sovereignty of the individual, the concept of self- ownership entails that “since each individual must think, learn and value and choose his or

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 46 her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation” (Rothbard, 2006, p. 34). The “coercive molestation” here mentioned, is only the exercise of coercion by individuals on other individuals and excludes the natural constraints placed upon people. This concept, when combined with the anarchist tendencies of anarcho- capitalist libertarianism, translates into the notion that the state has absolutely no legitimate right to deprive any individual of this right to self-ownership. Taking this into consideration, one can once again affirm that a society based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarian principles does not exist in our world as even Liechtenstein, which as previously mentioned guarantees the right of its constituent territories to secede, outlaws prostitution (U.S. Department of State, 2008). From an anarcho-capitalist libertarian point of view, so long as a person is not being coerced by physical violence into prostitution, the state has no legitimacy to infringe upon his or her right to self-ownership and thus the exploitation of his or her own body (Rothbard, 2006, p. 27). Further being inspired by the of Economics, anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, like any political ideology that embraces the free market in its most fundamentalist sense, views private property rights as indispensable in order for voluntary exchanges between individuals to be possible (Rothbard, 2006, p. 215-216). Conversely, any private property, like that of one’s body, ought to be free from arbitrary coercive intervention, especially that initiated by the state. The implication of this is then that in contrast to classical liberalism, which has unfortunately been selectively interpreted to justify slavery in the past, anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is vehemently opposed to the institution of slavery (Glausser, 1990). Indeed, Rothbard (2006, p. 34) explicitly rejects the legitimacy of one class of people having the right to own another class of people, to which he refers to as “to live parasitically”. What this means for the political puzzle of cultural diversity that is at stake is thus twofold. Firstly, in a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society, no individual who is in him or herself sovereign would be bound to the cultural community into which he or she is born, which would allow for people to be their authentic selves. Secondly, this sovereignty of the individual also creates the basis upon secession rights, which as will be discussed in more detail later on, would allow for people to exit from their communities, can be argued. Before inquiring as to how such a society could come about however, one must discuss another important, if not the most important component of the anarcho-capitalist libertarian framework, the non-aggression principle.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 47 5.3 The non-aggression principle Although the exact origin and the method with which the axiom ought to be devised are subjects of debate, what the non-aggression principle entails is generally agreed upon and rather self-explanatory as its name serves as a good indicator. According to Rothbard (2006, p. 27), the main premise of the concept is that “no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else”. Within the framework, aggression is defined as “initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else” and is thus “synonymous with invasion”. That being said, so long as one does not initiate such acts aggression, one must be free from having aggression acted upon him or her. Furthermore, this definition of aggression excludes acts that might be morally objectionable such as “pornography, sexual deviation, and prostitution” so long as people are not physically coerced into committing such acts. What this means for the discussion regarding cultural diversity is then that no matter how people might disagree about their ways of life, those who commit violent acts on such basis will never be morally sanctioned. Conversely, the only legitimate use of physical force and aggression would be in response to those who initiate them. In a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society then, in stark contrast to the classical liberal multicultural society envisioned by Kukathas (2008), one would not be obliged to “tolerate the intolerant” if the intolerance manifests itself in the form of physical violence. While one might argue that this would simply lead to violent escalations, this concern becomes unfounded when one considers two factors. Firstly, as demonstrated in the section on cultural diversity, violent conflicts coinciding with cultural diversity is primarily the result of the lack of peaceful means for the violent cultural groups to exercise their right to secede from the political entity in which they live and have had violent acts committed against them by the state in an attempt to suppress their movements. In a society based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarian principles, however, the right to secede as mentioned before would be absolute thus rendering violent means to exit a society unnecessary. Secondly, libertarians, unlike the ethnonationalist who are obsessed with unity, homogeneity and purity and the (state) multiculturalists who value the coexistence of cultures, do not have any such views that would form the basis of any argument against people refusing to participate in a given society so long as they respect the non-aggression principle. That being said, before anarcho- capitalist libertarianism is perceived by the reader as akin to the “isolationism” presented in Kukathas (2008) work, one would like to point out that Rothbard (2006, p. 33) is not unaware of such types of criticism. As he puts it, “[i]ndividualists have always been accused by their enemies of being “atomistic” and “without relation to anyone else in society”, which he

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 48 argues is far from being true. This could be attributed to his ardent defence of free-market economics and economic cooperation through trade. Instead Rothbard contends that “it is evident that individuals always learn from each other, cooperate and interact with each other; and that this, too, is required for man’s survival”. Evidently, however, this must be done in a voluntary manner that does not violate the non-aggression principle.

That being said, one could also argue that even this individualist view of people by extension cultures that is evidently not universal can indeed be “atomistic”, it is still less capable of inspiring the kind of violence committed by mankind throughout history rooted in collectivist views of cultural and ethnic/racial identities. As demonstrated so far, at the heart of either ethnonationalism or (state) multiculturalism, although to varying extents, is a primarily collectivist view of culture and identity, which also has policy implications that are not as discouraging of group conflicts as they ought to be in order for a peaceful environment for cultural diversity to take place. Having discussed all of this, one can now proceed to elucidate as to why the state is an illegitimate institution from an anarcho-capitalist libertarian point of view in the following section.

5.4 The State and Democracy As discussed in the previous sections, all of the political theorists presented in this paper have to varying extents criticized the state be it for the way in which it has managed cultural diversity or its mistreatment of cultural minorities in the nation state building process, and how the state is itself being far from neutral. By making use of both historical cases and examples of up to date real life situations, one has demonstrated that the criticisms of the aforementioned political theorists are indeed valid. However, none of these scholars have advocated for the radical position of abolishing the state, which is then precisely what anarcho-capitalist libertarianism argues in favour for.

In Anatomy of the State, Rothbard (2009, p. 9) rejects the commonly taken for granted notion that the state is “an institution of social service” and “a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind”. Additionally, he argues that the “identification of the state with society” following the “rise of democracy” is divorced from reality as it masks the true nature of the state as it “does not in any accurate sense “represent” the majority of the people”. Even in the event of such an equivalency being true, Rothbard (2009, p. 11) still rejects the legitimacy of the majority to violate the rights of the minority through the institution of the state. This is

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 49 not only in accord with the classical liberal rejection of the tyranny of the majority, but could also be argued to be reflective of the multiculturalist concerns about the majority culture being imposed upon cultural minorities in a given society. As a result, despite the fact that there are provisions put in place in liberal democracies that are supposed to protect minorities, one must once again question the multiculturalist defence of this political system, which is rejected by anarcho-capitalist libertarians. Within Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalist libertarian framework, the state is first of all “that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area”, which is not unique in itself and does not deviate much from ’s conceptualization of the state (Dusza, 1989) apart from the legitimacy of such a monopoly. In contrast to Weber, however, Rothbard (2009, p. 11) further describes the state as the “only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion”, which is evidently rooted in the previously presented theoretical framework of natural rights. The implication of this is then that “[h]aving used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects” (Rothbard, 2009, p. 12). As a result, it is inevitable for any state to use force in order to protect what Kukathas (2003, p. 214) would refer to as “interests of its own”, amongst which the most fundamental is the preservation of the institution of the state itself. Thus, it cannot be said that the state is in any way, shape, or form neutral as it will always treat political and cultural forces that seeks to undermine its legitimacy and territorial monopoly in a hostile manner. Taking this into consideration, it then comes as no surprise that, as previously demonstrated, states have historically and even today with the example of Catalonia been prone to violently suppressing secessionist and independence movements based upon unique cultural identities. Even when they do not engage directly in the use of force, states that have allowed for regional self-governance as a result of political processes and concessions such as the Scottish devolution during Tony Blair’s premiership in the United Kingdom often have to mobilize significant amounts of taxpayers’ money to set up the newly created institutions (The Economist, 1997). From an anarcho-capitalist libertarian perspective, taxation is a violation of one’s natural right to private property and not divorced from the use coercive force as one can be deprived of his or her liberty for not paying . Within the process of devolution, the people whose money are being used for a political process with which they might not sympathize and would rather let the region that the state is trying to maintain within its territory be fully independent are not given any decision making role even though they would be indirectly financing such a project. This is tantamount to

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 50 forcing a person to purchase an item that he or she does not desire. As for the democratic aspect of such processes, it once again is not immune to the problem of the tyranny of the majority, which further corroborates anarcho-capitalist libertarianism’s critique of democracy (Hoppe, 2007). Those who voted for independence in the numerous referenda from Quebec to Scotland that produced outcomes of remaining in their respective unions, who are by definition a relative minority of the population, still have to live in a state with which they do not fully culturally identify.

All that being said, the inevitability of the use of force one way or the other to impede upon one’s natural rights is not the only problem with the institution of the state as far as anarcho- capitalist libertarians are concerned. In addition, as Rothbard (2009, p. 18) puts it, the state also has a “basic and long-run problem”, which is “ideological” since “in order to continue in office, any government (not simply a “democratic” government) must have the support of the majority of its subjects”. As a result, beyond creating economic incentives for people to support the institution, the state must also through the use of ideology convince the majority of the people that “their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives”. In order to achieve this, the state must enlist the help of intellectuals to propagate such ideas as most people are not political theorists, which creates “an age-old alliance between the State and intellectuals” (Rothbard, 2009, p. 20-21). The reason as to why this is, according to Rothbard, is that “the intellectual’s livelihood in the free market is never too secure; for the intellectual must depend on the values and choices of the masses of his fellow men, and it is precisely characteristic of the masses that they are generally uninterested in intellectual matters”. In contrast, the state is argued to be “willing to offer the intellectuals a secure and permanent berth in the State apparatus; and thus a secure income and the panoply of prestige”. While one could easily criticize such postulates for being mildly elitist and conspiratorial, it would be intellectually dishonest for one to deny the fact that, as it is with the case of the political theorists presented in this paper, it is often more likely than not that intellectuals would argue for the importance of having a state rather than advocate for its abolition. Real life examples of such a symbiotic relationship in operation are also presented in Anatomy of the State (Rothbard, 2009). Such observations once again illustrate how it is possible for the state to employ “soft power” in order to preserve itself and its own interests at the cost of genuine diversity of ideas and is far from being neutral. This “soft power” of ideology, unlike the use of violent force of which any given state would have the monopoly within its territory and if used beyond this territory would be considered an act

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 51 of war, is also more capable of transcending state borders. Indeed, historically, states have through the use of ideological propaganda attempted to undermine the social stability of other states towards which they are hostile with the aim of inciting civil unrest and violent revolutions. This is especially pronounced when the state that is being targeted is ethnically and culturally diverse but does not allow for territorial secessions to take place. Examples of this, include but are not limited to National Socialist German propaganda aimed at provoking Scottish and Irish nationalist sentiments against the English in order to undermine the British war effort (BBC Scotland, 2017) and the Black Panther Party of the United States that was influenced by the Communist Chinese ideology of Maoism and was received by the Premier of Communist China during a visit (Newton, 2009, p. 349-352). Thus, what this means for the issue of cultural diversity is that the state cannot be entrusted with the task of fostering it since as previously discussed, genuine cultural diversity could entail the breakup of existing states, which states would seek to prevent by both relatively peaceful and violent means. Consequentially, it then comes as no surprise that states would continue to implement (state) multiculturalism as although the actual outcome of such policy implementations in terms of fostering cultural diversity is a subject of debate, the expansion of the power of the state that has taken place as a result is for certain. As discussed in the section on (state) multiculturalism, the theoretical foundations for this can be found in the works of political theorists in favour of this approach to cultural diversity. Indeed, this is a phenomenon that has also been noted by Rothbard’s controversial disciple Hans Hermann Hoppe in his work Democracy: The God That Failed (2007, p. xiii). According to Hoppe, “[a]s a result of an ever-expanding list of nondiscriminatory "affirmative action"- laws and nondiscriminatory, multicultural, egalitarian immigration policies, every nook and cranny of American society is affected by government management and forced integration; accordingly, social strife and racial, ethnic, and moral-cultural tension and hostility have increased dramatically”. In a similar fashion to these observations regarding the United States, one has also in this paper noted a similar trend in Western Europe. Within his anarcho-capitalist framework that goes further than that of Rothbard, Hoppe (2007, p. 207) argues that “[P]rivate property capitalism and egalitarian multiculturalism are as unlikely a combination as socialism and cultural conservatism”. The reason as to why this is, has to do with what has been one of the most important sources of cultural diversity within the theoretical framework of (state) multiculturalism, immigration, especially coupled with the welfare state that is required for (state) multiculturalism, which is also egalitarian, to be implemented. While one has previously argued that this is unsustainable as a source of cultural diversity in the pertinent

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 52 section, Hoppe (2007, p. 210) argues that “[t]he modern welfare state has largely stripped private property owners of the right to exclusion implied in the concept of private property”. Indeed, under a regime of (state) multiculturalism, discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, culture and religion is outlawed. The result of this, he further argues is then the “erosion of private property rights under the democratic welfare state” and “forced integration” (Hoppe, 2007, p. 113). Forced integration, according to Hoppe and as can be attested to by real life examples presented previously, “invariably creates tension, hatred, and' conflict” because “any mistake can be blamed on a “foreign" group or culture and all success claimed as one's own; hence, there is little reason for any culture to learn from another”. Thus, this creates an environment that does not encourage the cultural exchanges essential to cultural diversity as established in the respective section. The implication of all of this within the context of this paper is then once again that the theoretical framework of (state) multiculturalism is not internally coherent as it is capable of producing forced integration to which it is vehemently opposed, it can also stifle exchanges between cultures that are of vital importance to cultural diversity and the perpetuation of culture itself. Furthermore, if the state is so nonchalant in violating one set of people’s rights, how can it be entrusted with the task of protecting the rights of cultural minorities? Having said all that and presented arguments against the institution of the state both from a moral point of view and for its fundamental unfitness to take upon the task of fostering cultural diversity in a neutral manner, one will now proceed to finally devise an anarcho-capitalist libertarian approach to cultural diversity by beginning with the presentation of the two key concepts of voluntarism and secessionism. Due to the limited scope of this paper, what has been discussed in this section and what has been discussed in Kukathas’ (2008) work however, one will not be hypothesizing how a society with a minimal state might be able to foster cultural diversity.

5.5 Voluntarism and Secession While voluntarism is by no means unique to the anarcho-capitalist variant of libertarianism, the emphasis placed upon voluntary action cannot be overstated in Rothbard’s works. Throughout For a New Liberty, Rothbard (2006) rejects the legitimacy of the involuntary acts that the state coerces people into committing with the threat of having force used against them on way or the other on the grounds that they violate people’s natural rights. The most prominent example presented in the book is conscription, to which Rothbard (2006, p. 97) refers as “involuntary servitude” and “forced labor”. Furthermore, Rothbard (2006, p. 138- 139) demonstrates how “police corruption occurs in those areas where entrepreneurs supply

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 53 voluntary services to consumers, but where the government has decreed that these services are illegal: narcotics, prostitution, and gambling”. The result of such state interventions in people’s voluntary actions, is then not only “the imposition of higher cost, and more restricted output, of the activity than would have occurred in a free market” but also the creation of “what is in effect a privileged monopoly” over the exercise of certain voluntary actions due to both indirect and direct government licensing. The process of “de-statizing” in which libertarians must actively engage would then require people to “push back the role of government and to allow the voluntary and spontaneous energies of free persons full scope through peaceful interaction, notably in the free-market economy”. Regarding education, which is self-evidently of great importance to the preservation of culture, Rothbard (2006, p. 173) also provides the “prescription” for state administered education to be “replaced by freely chosen and voluntary actions—in short, by a genuine and truly free education, both in and out of formal schools”. Indeed, there has historically and even in modern day Western democratic welfare states not been a lack of private educational institutions for people of all ages from private research universities to religious and charity schools for the poor. In a critique that is very much reminiscent of the arguments of (state) multiculturalists, Rothbard (2006, p. 151) also points out that “[o]ne of the most common uses of compulsory public schooling has been to oppress and cripple national ethnic and linguistic minorities or colonized peoples—to force them to abandon their own language and culture on behalf of the language and culture of the ruling groups”. Although the likes of Kymlicka and Taylor might not at all agree with many of Rothbard’s other arguments, it would be intellectually dishonest for them to disagree with this particular assertion. In a similar fashion to education then, in a society based upon the principles of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, the task of promoting and preserving culture and cultural exchanges would also be taken upon voluntary actors and institutions such as independent scholars and families. Indeed, as discussed in the respective sections on culture and cultural diversity, families have played an important role in passing down cultural traditions and languages as it is still done so amongst immigrant minorities, which is noted by (state) multiculturalists like Kymlicka (2007b, p.11) while cultural exchanges have been greatly facilitated by voluntary trade between different cultural communities. Thus, detractors cannot argue that in the absence of the institution of the state, such voluntary actions that have taken place throughout human history would suddenly disappear and that cultures and cultural diversity would be destroyed without its so called support.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 54 For the issue of secession, one will once again turn to Hoppe’s (2007, p. 109-111) work in which he rejects the “orthodox view” that “centralization is generally a “good" and progressive movement, whereas disintegration and secession, even if sometimes unavoidable, represent an anachronism”. Instead, he demonstrates the positive aspects of political with the example of Switzerland while stressing that this does not at all mean that its constituent entities are economically isolated each other but instead a “high degree of economic integration”. This comes in stark contrast to the counterexample of Albania presented by Hoppe, which despite being politically centralized does not have a high degree of economic integration or cooperation amongst its different regions. This negative correlation between the political and economic, Hoppe argues by comparing the United States and the Soviet Union, is independent of the size of the countries. Following the same logic with succession being further political decentralization, Hoppe (2007, p. 114) argues that the former would resolve the problems associated with “forced integration” such as “promoting a downward leveling of cultures” and contributing to conflict escalations and instead encourage a “cooperative process of cultural selection and advancement”. In addition, “secession tends to advance integration and economic development”, which as previously discussed would also indirectly foster cultural exchanges and cultural diversity even though different cultural communities would not be forced to live with each other. Furthermore, “secession always involves the breaking away of a smaller from a larger population and is thus a vote against the principle of democracy and majoritarian rule in favor of private, decentralized ownership”, which would be a much more effective way than the multicultural democratic state in which the rights of cultural minorities could be fully guaranteed. As can be attested to by the fact that smaller Western European nations such as Switzerland have a relatively lesser degree of economic protectionism than their larger more powerful and politically centralized neighbors, “the smaller the country, the greater will be the pressure to opt for rather than protectionism” (Hoppe, 2007, p. 115). Regarding culture, Hoppe (2007, p. 117) stipulates that, secession “increases ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural diversity, while centuries of centralization have stamped out hundreds of distinct cultures”. This corroborates the observations made in the section on the ethnonationalist authoritarian state proposed by the alt-right. Finally, secession will also “end the forced integration brought about by centralization, and rather than stimulating social strife and cultural leveling, it will promote the peaceful, cooperative competition of different, territorially separate cultures”. From a theoretical point of view at least, such a world would undoubtedly be far superior than the multicultural democratic state that is currently in existence at fostering cultural

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 55 diversity. That being said, one might still wonder as to what exactly a society, or a particular country based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarianism would look like. In order to provide an answer to this then, the concept to which Rothbard refers as “nations by consent” will be discussed in the next section.

5.6 Nations by Consent In the eponymously titled text, Rothbard (1994, p. 1-2) begins by delineating between the nation-state and the nation proper. While the these two concepts are commonly associated with each other and often used in an interchangeable manner, the latter is “not the same thing as the state”, which according to Rothbard is a distinction that has not gone unnoticed by libertarians. Having done that, he contests the mistaken libertarian notion that “individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange”. Instead, Rothbard stipulates that “everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture”, which once again echoes the views of the (state) multiculturalist political theorists discussed in this paper and can be attested to by the realities of the world we live in as an entirely organic and natural human phenomenon. In stark contrast however, he argues that the “nation-state” in an European sense, “began not as a nation at all, but as an "imperial" conquest of one nationality usually at the "center" of the resulting country, and based in the capital city-over other nationalities at the periphery”. While nation states might as any state be able to monopolize the use of force over a territory in which more than one nation can exist, they have “never truly eradicated national aspirations among the submerged [...] nations” as can be attested to by the examples of the United Kingdom and Spain presented by Rothbard and discussed in the previous section. This problem, according to Rothbard is further complicated by how the nation “cannot be precisely defined” as it is “it is a complex and varying constellation of different forms of communities, languages, ethnic groups, or religions”. In order to illustrate this, he presents examples of peoples belonging to the same ethnic group with similar languages but “clash fiercely on religion” such as the “Eastern Orthodox Serbs, the Catholic Croats, and the Bosnian Muslims”. While the (state) multiculturalist political theorists presented in this paper would concur with Rothbard’s critique of the problematic nature of the modern nation-state, it is highly unlikely that they would commend the solution that he proposes. Furthermore, the understanding Rothbard has for the sheer complexity of cultural and ethnic/racial identities that are hard to generalize from a predominantly collectivist point of view is in stark contrast to that of the ethnonationalist alt-right and the multiculturalist political theorists exemplified by Kymlicka and Taylor.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 56

In accordance with the principle of secession, which stipulates that “every group, every nationality, should be allowed to secede from any nation-state and to join any other nation- state that agrees to have it”, Rothbard (1994, p. 6) devises what he calls the “pure anarcho- capitalist model” that would leave “no land areas, no square footage in the world” to remain “public” but instead “every square foot of land area, be they streets, squares, or neighborhoods” would be “privatized”. According to Rothbard, “[t]otal privatization would help solve nationality problems, often in surprising ways”. As to where such a process could take place, he suggests that “existing states, or classical liberal states, try to approach such a system even while some land areas remain in the governmental sphere”. While this might be ostensibly counterintuitive when one considers how negatively anarcho-capitalists libertarians conceptualize the state as illustrated in this paper, it would be hard to deny that “classical liberal states” would indeed allow for a greater degree of freedom than their illiberal counterparts. In addition, it is also such states that allow for independence movements to take place while others violently suppress them. Equally as critical of what Hoppe (2007) refers to as “free immigration”, Rothbard (1994, p. 7) asserts that a “totally privatized country would not have "open borders" at all”. Instead, if the “pure anarcho- capitalist model” were to be fully implemented, it “would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property”. Furthermore, a “totally privatized country would be as "closed" as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire”. Since such an anarcho-capitalist country would also self-evidently have to adhere to the principle of voluntarism discussed in the previous section, its creation would not entail the same kind of arbitrary forceful exclusion of certain peoples as envisioned in the ethnonationalist authoritarian state proposed by the alt-right.

In a world with such “nations by consent”, [s]ome neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous”, which would allow for a greater degree of general human cultural diversity than the world we live in. That being said, such a world of anarchy would not mean the absence of social order nor lawlessness. Instead, “[s]ome localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them” (Rothbard, 1994, p. 7). While this would seem self-explanatory to the anarcho-capitalist libertarian, one would not be surprised if the question as to how such a social order and the respect for the non-aggression principle would be maintained. The answer to this can be found in Hoppe’s work titled The

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 57 Idea of a Private Law Society (2006), in which he argues that in such a society “the production and maintenance of law will have to be undertaken by freely financed and competing individuals and agencies”. Evidently, the said “law” would have to based upon the anarcho-capitalist libertarian principles elucidated so far. In contrast to “the status quo of state-provided security protection”, Hoppe argues, people would be able to “engage in self- defense to protect one's life and property against invaders” as “essentially no restrictions on the private ownership of firearms and other weapons would exist”. Beyond the individual level, such a society could also rely on “specialized agents and agencies to protect our life and property” such as “freely financed and competing insurance companies that “in turn will associate and cooperate with police and detective agencies”. Due to the limited scope of this paper, one cannot discuss the details of the economic aspects of such institutions. If one were to point out potentially un-libertarian nature of some private societies that would enforce laws that are against the anarcho-capitalist libertarian principle of self-ownership as a logical inconsistency of the framework, this would not be a problem for the anarcho-capitalist libertarian as he or she does not intend to impose his or her principles on other people. In addition, such “prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person's or community's land area” like house rules. Furthermore, the absolute freedom of association would allow for “every group or interest” to “at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preference”. While all of All that being said, Rothbard is well aware that even such a world would “not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts” but indeed “at least provide a "second-best" solution that most people might be willing to live with”. Indeed, such a political arrangement would most certainly in theory better foster cultural diversity and the continuation of culture than the multicultural democratic state by de-escalating ethnic and cultural conflicts while encouraging economic cooperation and cultural exchanges. Furthermore, it would also better resolve the existing problems related to cultural diversity highlighted by multiculturalist political theorists such as the inability for certain cultural minorities to engage in their own nation building process and the consequent prevention of such groups from being their “authentic” selves. Due to the limited scope of this paper, one will not further discuss other anarcho-capitalist libertarian means to bringing about the breakup of states such as counter-economics through the black market that largely focus on the economic rather than the social and cultural aspects of the process. Instead, one will now proceed to provide a synthesis of the main ideas of this paper before finally concluding the research project and elucidating the response to the research question.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 58 6. Synthesis of Ideas and Conclusion

When one first embarked upon this intellectual journey dedicated to investigating (state) multiculturalism and the multicultural democratic state in order to theorize an anarcho- capitalist libertarian approach to the phenomenon of cultural diversity imperative to the former two, one was primarily unsettled by the increasing lack of separation between culture and politics in the Western world. Prior to this, one had entertained the idea of tackling the political puzzle of the rise of political correctness and the related erosion of the freedom of expression as noted by Trevor Phillips in his documentary. However, as epitomized by Trump’s election and its aftermath, the increased presence of politically incorrect and controversial personalities in the political and cultural landscape of the Western world has not brought about a more tolerant climate for objectionable ideas nor a greater degree of diversity of opinions being debated in a civilized manner. Instead, the conflict between different political and cultural groups with distinct identities continue to escalate in both violent and non-violent manners. As a result, one turned to the political system under which all of this takes place and the literature from which arguments in favour of such a system stem, namely the multicultural democratic state and (state) multiculturalism. During the research process, one noticed the lack of an approach to political puzzle of cultural diversity that is as systematic and developed as the theoretical framework of multiculturalism that does not involve the institution of the state despite the critical view of it that can indeed be found amongst existing literature. This then further motivated the researcher to theorize how could the ideas of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism help solve the problems related to cultural diversity, especially in contrast to (state) multiculturalism and the multicultural democratic state that it defends. As mentioned previously, this was a challenging endeavor as once one delved deeper into the theoretical framework of (state) multiculturalism, one came to the realization that the key concepts of culture and cultural diversity are not as adequately defined as they ought to be given their importance within such discussions. As a result, the researcher was left with the task of conceptualizing what culture and cultural diversity entail by taking into consideration what has been noted by multicultural political theorists while also looking at the real-life manifestations of the two concepts. Having done that, one was able to critique the arguments and the internal logic of (state) multiculturalism and the ethnonationalism proposed by the rising political force of the alt-right for their limited views of culture that are not always reflective of the reality of the world in which we live. In addition to providing an answer to the research question, one believes that one has also

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 59 contributed to existing discussions on the subject matter by including cultural supremacist views that are non-European, namely that of Nationalist China, and the multiculturalist albeit illiberal approach to cultural diversity exemplified by the case of Singapore. Following this, the researcher was also able to critique the multicultural democratic state not only for the environment that it has created for cultural diversity that is prone to the escalation of identitarian conflict but also the narrow definition of culture and cultural diversity it has adopted, which is influenced by the arguments of (state) multiculturalism. Through discussion of Kukathas’ classical liberal approach to cultural diversity, one has also been able to justify the rejection of simply having a state that is not involved in cultural affairs. Finally, then, one was able to demonstrate how the ideas of anarcho-capitalist libertarianism would theoretically allow for an environment for cultural diversity to flourish to a greater extent than the multicultural democratic state. While the lack of conceptualization of culture and cultural diversity within the school of thought might be normally a disadvantage, it is also precisely due to this that it does not have a narrow view of how to foster cultural developments. Instead, it is well aware of just how complex cultural and ethnic/racial identities can be without overlooking how individualist rather than collectivist can be even if they are “necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture” (Rothbard, 1994, p. 1-2). Furthermore, its commitment to non-violence and the right of people to self-determination by secession to not only be their authentic selves but also free themselves from any cultural dominance. In contrast to the potential for the existing multicultural democratic state to tolerate the intolerant so to speak, anarcho-capitalist libertarianism would defend the right of people to use defensive force against those who attempt to violently impose their culture upon those who have voluntarily formed and privatized “nations by consent”.

Apart from the self-evident utopian and thus unrealistic nature of such a hypothetical world, which is as previously noted, considered by Rothbard, one could also question the logic of the proposal of such a system to be potentially born out of a classical liberal state as proposed by Rothbard despite his rejection of the institution of the state. For future research purposes then, one would have to include other potential means to bring about privately-owned countries. In terms of other shortcomings with this paper, one could also point out the limited amount of literature in multiculturalism considered, which has been justified by the limited scope of the research project at the master’s level. Furthermore, as noted in the body of the text, one would also have to take into consideration multicultural political theorists that discuss cultural identities associated with various sexual orientations and genders.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 60 Consequently, one would also have to discuss the possible reactions to the potential conflicts that can arise from those who have different views on the subject matter and do not wish to for example be obliged to give recognition to the gender identity with which people self- identify. Having previously written on the topic of transhumanism at the bachelor’s degree level, the researcher could also further expand the scope of future studies by inquiring into the possible impact on cultural diversity and cultural identities that science fiction like technologies allowing for people to change their biological sexes and races could have. Finally, one is well aware of the possibility of any potential reader to take issue with the of historical cases and real-life examples presented in this work as being selective and not entirely unbiased. However, since one has not made any audacious claims about proactively applying the findings and the generalizations in a universal manner but instead proposed an alternative approach to cultural diversity that people can voluntarily adopt, one cannot be faulted for not considering absolutely every example and case pertaining to the subject matter.

As one arrives at the end of this intellectual journey, then, one can conclude that one has indeed provided an answer to the research question raised introduction and gone about doing so in accord with the demands of the field of political theory. One has made use of the anarcho-capitalist libertarian theoretical framework to contribute to the discussion regarding cultural diversity by hypothesizing response to the phenomenon that does not involve the institution of the state. In addition to one’s objection to the current political arrangements based upon anarcho-capitalist libertarian principles, one has also been able to some extent demonstrate the inadequate understanding of culture and cultural diversity that can be found within the existing literature. As it is the case with many other human phenomena that can very often be much too complex for the institution of the state, which one has also demonstrated to not be devoid of any of its own interests even if benign in nature, the sheer complexity of human experience of culture and cultural diversity is also beyond the grasp of any individual or groups of politicians3. Despite the sometimes alarmist undertone that can be detected within the body of this work, one remains optimistic about the future of cultural developments and the diversity of mankind while looking forward to more civil discussions on subject matter that would help to de-escalate identitarian conflicts.

3 This statement takes inspiration from the concept of the Pretence of Knowledge elucidated by Hayek in his Nobel Prize Lecture (Nobelprize.org, 1974).

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 61 7. Bibliography and Other Sources (in alphabetical order)

Published works and articles

Antieau, C. J. (1960). Natural Rights And The Founding Fathers-The Virginians, in Washington and Lee Law Review, 17(1), 43.

Banting, K. G., & Kymlicka, W. (2006). Do multiculturalism policies erode the welfare state? An empirical analysis. In Multiculturalism and the welfare state: Recognition and redistribution in contemporary democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barnum, D. G. (1982). Decision Making in A Constitutional Democracy: Policy Formation in the Skokie Free Speech Controversy. The Journal of Politics 44 (2), 480–508.

Chiang, K. (1965). Soviet Russia in China: A summing-up at seventy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Cook, T. E. (2003). Separation, Assimilation, or Accommodation: Contrasting Ethnic Minority Policies. ABC-CLIO, 65.

Ferrarese, E. (2009). “Gabba-Gabba, We Accept You, One of Us”: Vulnerability and Power in the Relationship of Recognition, in Constellation 16, 4, 604-614.

Festenstein, M. (2005). Negotiating diversity: culture, deliberation, trust. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Friedman, D. D. (1995). The machinery of freedom: Guide to a radical capitalism. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Glausser, W. (1990). Three Approaches to Locke and the Slave Trade. Journal of the History of Ideas, 51(2), 199-216. doi:10.2307/2709512

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 62 Gordon, P., & McCormick, J. (Eds.). (2013). Weimar Thought: A Contested Legacy. Princeton University Press, 179-200.

GU, E. (2001). Who was Mr Democracy? The May Fourth Discourse of Populist Democracy and the Radicalization of Chinese Intellectuals (1915-1922). Modern Asian Studies, 35(3), 589-621.

Gutmann, A. (2003). Identity in Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hoppe, H.H. (2007). Democracy: The God That Failed. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Kukathas, C. (2007). The liberal archipelago: A theory of diversity and freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kukathas, C. (2008). Anarcho-multiculturalism: the pure theory of liberalism. In: Levey, G.B. (ed.) Political Theory and Australian Multiculturalism. Berghahn Books, 29-43.

Kymlicka, W. (1991). Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 89.

Kymlicka, W. (1992). The Rights of Minority Cultures: Reply to Kukathas, in Political Theory, 20(1), 140-146.

Kymlicka, W. (1992). The Rights of Minority Cultures: Reply to Kukathas. Political Theory, 20(1), 140-146.

Kymlicka, W. (2007). Multicultural odysseys: navigating the new international politics of diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 61-117.

Kymlicka, W. (2007). The new debate on minority rights (and postscript), in Simon, L. A. & Owen, D. (eds). Multiculturalism and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 63 Lægaard, S. (2011). "Unequal recognition, misrecognition and injustice: The case of religious minorities in Denmark", in Ethnicities, 1-19.

Miller, D. (2008). Immigrants, Nations, and Citizenship, in The Journal of Political Philosophy, 16, 4, 371–390.

Modood, T. (2010). Difference, 'Multi' and Equality, in Seymour, M. (ed). The Plural States of Recognition, 152-171. Palgrave.

Murray, R. B. (2003) Legal Cases of the Civil War. Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 149-159.

Newton, H. P. (2009). Revolutionary suicide. New York: Penguin Books, 349-352. Nijmegen.

Paul, R. (2009). The revolution: A manifesto. New York: Grand Central Pub.

Pitcher, B. (2006) "Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” Immigration, multiculturalism and the disavowal of racism in the run-up to the 2005 British general election. Social Semiotics, 16 (4), 535-551.

Rothbard, M.N. (1994). Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State, in Journal of Libertarian Studies 11, No. 1, 1–10.

Rothbard, M. N. (1998). The Ethics of Liberty. New York: NYU Press.

Rothbard, M.N. (2000). Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays. Auburn, Alabama: the Institute.

Rothbard, M.N. (2006). For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Auburn, Alabama: the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Rothbard, M.N. (2009). The Anatomy of the State. Auburn, Alabama: the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 64

Sautman, B. (1997). Affirmative Action, Ethnic Minorities and China’s Universities, in Working Papers in the Social Sciences, no. 13. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

Sowell, T. (1983). The Economics and Politics of Race. New York: William Morrow & Co.

Taylor, C. (1992). The Politics of Recognition, in Gutmann, A. (ed.) Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 25-73.

Taylor, C. (1997). Nationalism and Modernity, in McMahan, J. & McKim, R. (eds), The Ethics of Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vallentyne, P. (2000). Left-Libertarianism: A Primer. In Vallentyne, A. & Steiner, H. (eds.), Left Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate. Palgrave Publishers. von Mises, L. (2010). Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War. Auburn, Alabama: the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Wachman, A. M. (1994). Taiwan: National Identity and Democratization. M.E. Sharpe publishing, 274-275.

Wegner, G. P. (2004). The Language of the Third Reich: LTI, Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist's Notebook (review). Holocaust and Genocide Studies 18(1), 106-108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wickström, M. (2015). The multicultural moment: The history of the idea and politics of multiculturalism in Sweden in comparative, transnational and biographical context, 1964- 1975. Åbo : Åbo Akademi University.

Williams, W. E. (2011). Race & economics: How much can be blamed on discrimination?. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press.

Wissenburg, M. (2011). The Concept of Nature in Libertarianism. Radboud University.

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 65

Yueh, H. S. (2016). Identity Politics and Popular Culture in Taiwan: A Sajiao Generation. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.

Digital Sources

Alexander, H. (2017, October 17). Apple's head of diversity apologises for saying a group of 12 white men can be as diverse as a team with women and minorities. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/17/apples-head-diversity- apologises-saying-group-12-white-men-can/

AndersonSchoepe, T. (2017, January 25). Owner of limo set on fire during anti-Trump protests in Washington, DC amid inauguration speaks out. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/25/owner-of-limo-set-on-fire-during-anti- trump-protests-in-washingt/21662962/

BBC News. (2016, July 15). German police target hate crime in coordinated raids. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36804363

BBC Scotland. (2017, December 12). How the Nazi propaganda machine tried – and failed – to stir up rebellion in World War Two Scotland. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/28ZCCMLB7FmMKqyyzqlK6SS/how-the-nazi- propaganda-machine-tried-and-failed-to-stir-up-rebellion-in-world-war-two-scotland

Beckett, L. (2017, October 19). White supremacist Richard Spencer faces barrage of protest at Florida speech. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/19/richard-spencer-protest-university-florida- speech-white-supremacist

Capatides, C. (2016, April 11). Molenbeek and Schaerbeek: A tale of two tragedies. Retrieved December 25, 2017, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/molenbeek-and- schaerbeek-brussels-belgium-a-tale-of-two-terror-tragedies/

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 66 Caplan, L. (2017, November 08). Should Facebook and Twitter Be Regulated Under the First Amendment? Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.wired.com/story/should- facebook-and-twitter-be-regulated-under-the-first-amendment/

Carissimo, J. (2017, August 12). 1 dead, 19 injured after car plows into protesters in Charlottesville. Retrieved December 25, 2017, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/1-dead- 19-injured-after-car-plows-into-protesters-in-charlottesville/

Chakelian, A. (2017, March 08). Rise of the nationalists: a guide to Europe's far-right parties. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2017/03/rise-nationalists-guide-europe-s-far- right-parties

Channel 4. (2017, February 22). Has Political Correctness Gone Mad? Retrieved December 26, 2017, from http://www.channel4.com/programmes/has-political-correctness-gone-mad

Channel NewsAsia. (2017, June 12). Elected Presidency: Amendments to Constitution passed in Parliament. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/elected-presidency-amendments-to- constitution-passed-in-parliame-7719282

Dalai Lama. (1987, September 21). Five Point Peace Plan. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.dalailama.com/messages/tibet/five-point-peace-plan

Dusza, K. (1989). Max Weber's Conception of the State. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 3(1), 71-105. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20006938

Dwoskin, E., Svrluga, S., & Wan, W. (2017, April 26). Ann Coulter speech at UC Berkeley canceled, again, amid fears for safety. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/04/26/ann-coulter-speech- canceled-at-uc-berkeley-amid-fears-for-safety/?utm_term=.093083681727

Ehrenfreund, M. (2016, November 21). What the alt-right really wants, according to a professor writing a book about them. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 67 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/21/what-the-alt-right-really-wants- according-to-a-professor-writing-a-book-about-them/?utm_term=.cb8a9c2e2f98

Evans, S. (2010, October 17). Merkel says German multicultural society has failed. Retrieved December 25, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451

FBI. (2016, May 26). FBI Jackson History. Retrieved December 25, 2017, from https://www.fbi.gov/history/field-office-histories/jackson

Fuerstenhaus.li. (2017). The 2003 Constitutional Reform. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.fuerstenhaus.li/en/monarchy/the-reform-of-the-constitution-in-2003/

Goldstein J. (2016, September 06). The Alt-Right Is The Mirror Image Of The New Left. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/06/alt-right-mirror-image- new-left/

Graham, C. (2016, November 22). Nazi salutes and white supremacism: Who is Richard Spencer, the 'racist academic' behind the 'Alt right' movement. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/richard-spencer-white-nationalist-leading-alt-right- movement/

Gray, J. (2014, May 23). How the west embraced Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/05/how- west-embraced-chairman-mao-s-little-red-book

Hague, G. D. (2016, December 09). Geert Wilders found guilty of inciting discrimination. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/09/geert- wilders-found-guilty-in-hate-speech-trial-but-no-sentence-imposed

Han, J. (2014, September 19). Communal riots of 1964. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_45_2005-01-06.html

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 68 Henley, J. (2016, November 09). White and wealthy voters gave victory to Donald Trump, exit polls show. Retrieved December 25, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

Hodges, D. (2015, February 05). Rotherham abuse didn't happen because of political correctness. It happened because of racism. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11392781/Rotherham-abuse-didnt-happen- because-of-political-correctness.-It-happened-because-of-racism.html

Hoppe, H. H. (2006, July 27). The Idea of a Private Law Society. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from https://mises.org/library/idea-private-law-society

Jackson, W. (2017, March 01). George Bush and the Political Homelessness of Neoconservatives. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://altright.com/2017/03/01/george-bush-and-the-political-homelessness-of- neoconservatives/

Jones, S. (2017, November 02). Spanish judge jails eight members of former Catalan government. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/02/spanish-court-question-catalonia- separatists-except-puigdemont

Klöter, H. (2004). Language Policy in the KMT and DPP eras, in China Perspectives [Online], 56. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from http://chinaperspectives.revues.org/442

Kroszner, R. S. (2015, September 02). Unintended consequences: Origins of an enduring idea. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from http://review.chicagobooth.edu/magazine/fall- 2015/unintended-consequences-origins-of-an-enduring-idea

Kuenssberg, L. (2011, February 05). State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron. Retrieved December 25, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-12371994

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 69 Levy, P. (2017, June 23). This is the alt-right movement's vision for an all-white society, with Donald Trump leading the way. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/alt-right-makes-its-main-stream-debut/

Lim, A. (2018, January 06). The Alt-Right’s Asian Fetish. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/opinion/sunday/alt-right-asian-fetish.html

Lim, S. Y. (2013, July 04). Speak Mandarin Campaign. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2013-07-04_122007.html

Mair, V. (2014, January 31). Cantonese poetry recitation, in Language Log. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=10084

Margaret Thatcher Foundation. (2017). Thatcher, Hayek & Friedman. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from http://www.margaretthatcher.org/archive/Hayek.asp

Meyers, L. (2011, August 22). Politics Really is Downstream from Culture. Retrieved December 25, 2017, from http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2011/08/22/politics- really-is-downstream-from-culture/

Muratov, D. (2014, December 12). The Chechen wars murdered Russian democracy in its cradle. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/12/-sp-chechnya-russia-war-anniversary

Murray, D. (2013, June 27). A gross double standard over hate speech. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/06/a-gross-double-standard-over-hate-speech/

New York State Attorney General. (n.d.). Voting Rights. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from https://ag.ny.gov/civil-rights/voting-rights

Nobelprize.org. (1974). Friedrich August von Hayek - Prize Lecture. Retrieved January 09, 2018, from https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic- sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 70 O'Shaughnessy, N. (2017, September 10). Make no mistake about it: the alt-right is a cult, and this is how its members lure people in. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alt-right-neo-nazi-donald-trump-hitler-memes-pepe- the-frog-ubermensch-based-stickman-a7938911.html

Oates, L. (2017, February 06). How Identity Politics Is Destroying The Left And Being Used By The 'Alt-Right'. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lauryn- oates/identity-politics-alt-right_b_14481006.html

Paiz, J., et al. (2016, May 03). APA Formatting and Style Guide, in Welcome to the Purdue OWL. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Paul, R. (2017, March 01). The Political Importance of Murray Rothbard. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://mises.org/library/political-importance-murray-rothbard Pearson, A. (2015, March 19). We must listen to Trevor Phillips and his inconvenient truths about race. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11479761/We-must-listen-to-Trevor- Phillips-and-his-inconvenient-truths-about-race.html

Pringle, R. W. (2016, August 09). Balkanization. Retrieved December 25, 2017, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Balkanization

Reilly, K. (2017, January 28). Donald Trump Immigration Order: Canada Welcomes Refugees. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from http://time.com/4652711/justin-trudeau-canada- refugees/

Reinhard, B. (2016, August 24). 'Alt-Right' Enters the Political Limelight. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://www.wsj.com/articles/alt-right-enters-the-political- limelight-1472081850

Roaming Millennial. (2017, May 02). Richard Spencer Interview | Politics & The Alt-Right's Goals (Pt. 2) [Video file]. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhicdpt9Q0U

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 71

Roaming Millennial. (2017, May 02). Richard Spencer Interview | Rαce, Birthrates, WWII (Pt. 3) [Video file]. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSefByrjXzY

Roaming Millennial. (2017, May 02). Richard Spencer Interview | What is the Alt-Right? (Pt. 1) [Video file]. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlOv3BXSyJM

Rockwell Jr, L. H. (1998, January 06). Mises on the Family. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://mises.org/library/mises-family

Rodrigues, L. C. (n.d.). Multiculturalism. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/multicul/

Sarlin, B. (2016, November 14). Analysis: Breitbart's Steve Bannon Leads the 'Alt Right' to the White House. Retrieved December 25, 2017, from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/analysis-breitbart-s-steve-bannon-leads-alt- right-white-house-n683316

Sim, C. (2016, September 01). Bilingual policy. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2016-09-01_093402.html

Simon, C. (2017, November 21). Free Speech Isn't Free: It's Costing College Campuses Millions. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/11/20/free-speech-isnt-free-its-costing- college-campuses-millions/2/#27a1879d741b

Song, S. (2016, Aug 12). Multiculturalism. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiculturalism/

Southern Poverty Law Center. (n.d.). Richard Bertrand Spencer. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard- bertrand-spencer-0

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 72

Sowell, T. (2016, December 20). The 'Diversity' Fraud. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/12/16/the-diversity-fraud

Sowell, T. (n.d.). Cultural Diversity: A World View. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from http://www.tsowell.com/spcultur.html

Taylor, A. (2015, November 24). In 1968, a British politician warned immigration would lead to violence. Now some say he was right. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/24/in-1968-a-british- politician-warned-immigration-would-lead-to-violence-now-some-say-he-was- right/?utm_term=.de11bf285894

The Economist. (1997, September 06). The choice for Scotland and Wales. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from http://www.economist.com/node/155992

The Guardian. (2005, September 19). Britain 'sleepwalking to segregation'. Retrieved December 25, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/19/race.socialexclusion

Tucker, J. A. (2017, December 18). Of Course the Alt-Right Is Against Capitalism. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://fee.org/articles/of-course-the-alt-right-is-against-capitalism/

United States Census Bureau. (2015). Your Geography Selections. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

U.S. Department of State. (2008, March 11). Liechtenstein. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100568.htm

UNESCO.org. (2001). UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php- URL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 73 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (n.d.). Culture in the Third Reich: Disseminating the Nazi Worldview. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007519

University of Nottingham China Policy Institute. (2016, July 09). Chinese culture after the Cultural Revolution. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from https://cpianalysis.org/2016/07/14/chinese-culture-after-the-cultural-revolution/

USA.gov. (2017, November 29). Learn About Life in the United States. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from https://www.usa.gov/life-in-the-us#item-36017

Volokh, E. (2015, May 07). No, there's no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh- conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first- amendment/?utm_term=.60184e31b7c9

Wang, J. (2014, February 04). The KMT is destined to be divided from within. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2016/02/04/2003638771

Weber, W. (2016, February 22). Vorarlberg Referendum. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/vorarlberg_referendum

Weigel, D. (2017, August 24). Analysis | Libertarians wrestle with the alt-right. Retrieved December 25, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/24/libertarians-wrestle-with- the-alt-right/?utm_term=.757950b4fdf3

West, L. (2017, January 21). Not My President, Not Now, Not Ever. Retrieved December 28, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/opinion/presidential- inauguration-2017/not-my-president-not-now-not-ever

Williams, W. E. (2016, December 21). Inclusiveness and Diversity. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/12/16/inclusiveness-and-diversity

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 74

Winter, J., & Weinberger, S. (2017, October 06). The FBI's New U.S. Terrorist Threat: 'Black Identity Extremists'. Retrieved December 26, 2017, from http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/06/the-fbi-has-identified-a-new-domestic-terrorist-threat- and-its-black-identity-extremists/

Wu, J. (2014, March 11). Remembering Taiwan's White Terror. Retrieved December 27, 2017, from https://thediplomat.com/2014/03/remembering-taiwans-white-terror/

Zhong, Z. (2009, June 13) Racial and Religious Hate Speech in Singapore: Reclaiming the Victim's Perspective, in Singapore Law Review. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1418654

Zill, N. (2016, November 30). Most Immigrant Families Are Traditional Families. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from https://ifstudies.org/blog/most-immigrant-families-are-traditional- families

Cultural Diversity Without the State – Michael Vouillamoz 75