Part Two THE CASE FOR THE NATIONAL STATE
- MetaEconGary
- Aug 20
- 24 min read
Updated: Aug 27
VIII: Two Types of Political Philosophy
Hazony, as political theorist/philosopher points to how political philosophy has two subjects: 1) philosophy of government, and 2) philosophy of political order. The first is about the best form of government. The second is about the best political order.
Hazony goes on to make the case that the best political order must first be decided. It is only after the people agree to some order can the government be formed. Hazony frames the discussion with the claim that the independent state is always the best order, which means some agreement among families, clans and tribes to an order that works for same. The argument is made that an empire type order can never work as well as many independent states, each reflecting (in DIT terms) an agreement among the families, clans and tribes on common ground, what members of each entity can go along with.
IX: The Foundations of Political Order
Using DIT to help make sense of how Hazony approaches the matter of political order, think of each person in a family, clan and/or tribe having a self-interest path 0G. Each of said people must find a way to get along with others in the community, which means finding common ground as represented in the shared other-interest of path 0M. Hazony refers to that process of finding common ground, evolving the shared other-interest (in DIT framing) as politics.
Empathy-With Starts With the Family
Starting points --- empathy-based --- to finding common ground would generally first involve families, perhaps moving on to clans, and then to tribes. One can see how the shared other-interest in a family might interact with the shared other-interest of other families, on the way to finding common ground in a clan. Each clan in turn might interact with other clans to find common ground on the way to forming a tribe. Each of said entities are referred to as institutions. The political process then continues with the tribes finding common ground … in effect all the institutions reflect that common ground --- finding the overall shared other-interest that is represented in the Nation.
The institutions are reflected in the shared other-interest path 0M. Each person pursuing self-interest path 0G is then tempered either voluntarily or controlled by said institution (s) in finding the best path 0Z. Like Hazony says it, “Each institution teaches, persuades, or coerces its members to act according to these fixed purposes and forms, abiding by accepted general rules and procedures, so that they can reliably act as a body, without each time having to be persuaded or coerced anew (p. 62).” Yes. DIT makes good and easy sense of it.
Drivers in Joining in With the Shared Other-Interest
So, what drives a person to join into the shared other interest of an institution at any of said levels? Hazony says it is one of three things: 1) reprisal, 2) money, and/or 3) will join if the person sees “… the interests and aims of the institution as their own (p. 62).” The last one is the most durable, sustainable, as in the now widely shared other-interest is internalized within the own-self interest, as DIT makes clear. It is internalized within the own-interest having a dual dimension, as in the joint self & other-interest.
The example of the soldier (p. 62), who is also perhaps part of a squad with a shared interest in supporting each other, is a case in point. Generally, most soldiers join the shared cause, the shared other-interest for reasons like defending the Nation. Using DIT, a solider buys into the National shared other-interest 0M, even willing to sacrifice the entire self-interest of path 0G for the greater cause of the shared other interest in protecting the Nation, as in a soldier losing life on the horizontal axis. The payoff is in the honor, the having given all, for the larger cause. At the moment of death, the other-interest is maximized while the self-interest is zero.
At the same time, a draft dodger would stay on path 0G close to if not on the vertical axis, seeing no value in the shared other-interest. Such an ego-based self-interest only person would observe that anyone valuing the payoff of shared other-interest is a sucker and loser. Notice how SIT can only explain the behavior of the latter, and in effect encourages it.
SIT cannot explain the behavior of a soldier dedicated to the shared other-interest of the Nation. In contrast, DIT easily explains the behavior of a dedicated to the Nation soldier who sacrifices self-interest to operate at least on path 0Z, “all gave some,” and risks the vertical axis outcome as in “some gave all.”
Hazony sees the importance of the shared other-interest in the political cause, but does not seem to see the need for an analytical framework to make sense of it. People vote the shared other-interest of the political party represented on path 0M, not the self-interest on path 0G. The “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” book is a case in point: Many Kansas voters are operating on path 0M (voting culture), or, at minimum, on some path 0Z. Notice in both cases said voters are sacrificing some payoff in the domain of self-interest path 0G.
As Hazony does claim, a serious and systematic examination of Human nature “cannot avoid (considering, including the) capacity of the human individual to recognize the aims of the collective as his own (p. 63).” Yes: DIT reflects and illustrates the matter with path 0M internalized within the own-self.
Shared Other-Interest as a Kind of Loyalty, and Mutual Loyalty as All Join into the Cause
Hazony wants to refer to the shared other-interest internalized within the own-self as reflecting a kind of loyalty, and, when it goes both ways, a mutual loyalty. As Hazony says it, “The existence of such bonds of mutual loyalty does not mean that they entirely cease to be independent persons (p. 65).” DIT clarifies it: The path 0G which is all about the independent person still resides within the own-self. It is just now tempered by the loyalty, mutual loyalty in the underlying path 0M, which comes into play on path 0Z.
Hazony sees the mutual loyalty arising in many different realms, perhaps the most basic unit being the family: In DIT terms, the shared other-interest within the family. Said families then might join across said units on the common ground of a clan: In DIT terms, the shared other-interest in the clan. To Hazony, the next level now involving many clans gives a tribe. The tribes then form on the common ground --- DIT shared other-interest --- to form the Nation. DIT suggests a kind of Venn diagram of shared other-interest, perhaps differing at every level.
Regarding Nationalism, DIT sees all are held together with the National shared other-interest in such things as every person being endowed with inalienable rights, and all subject to the same rule of law. Hazony continues on with the shared other-interest (again, using DIT: Hazony does not use the DIT framework, at least not directly) as in the notion of “the family of Nations” --- again all about common ground, a widely shared other-interest as has, as a case in point, historically kept the Western Democracies working together.
Hazony Claims the Shared Other-Interest Goes Well Beyond Kinship
Hazony notes how it is not just biological kinship at play. Well, DIT would beg to differ, as biological science points to the inherent tendencies to the joint expression of self & other, organism & ecosystem, I & We, ego & empathy as key in evolution. So, it is kinship on a Spaceship scale.
Now, it is a matter of degree, as in some reptiles having only a bit of empathy-with at play, as the crocodile mother nudges the new born toward the water where safety awaits, and only eats the young if the move is resisted. Yet, every organism has to have both tendencies to evolve. As E.O. Wilson and James Sloan Wilson, Evolutionary Biologists say it, “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary (Wilson 2015, p. 23).” Selfishness is another way to describe self-interest.
Altruism is another way to describe acting on the shared other-interest. Evolutionary success is only possible on path 0Z, with good balance in Selfishness & Altruism (Selflessness), Ego & Empathy. Hazony gets it correct, while not citing to science to support the claim. The balancing of Individual & Community, Organism & Ecosystem goes on at every level from the cellular to the most complex organism, among all living creatures, and certainly is the case for the Human in a Nation.
Individuals Pursue the Material Success of the Collective
Hazony claims: “Human beings constantly desire and actively pursue the health and prosperity of the family, clan, tribe, or nation to which they are tied by bonds of mutual loyalty: We have an intense need to seek the material success of the collective (p. 74).” As DIT, and Evolutionary Biology make clear, yes, it is essential to pursue balance in the self & other, individual & community. It is not clear the notion plays well, as made abundantly clear every day here in early-2025, where the political framing is all about self-interest of a few and the narrowly shared interest of “us” without regard for the widely -shared other interest of the Nation including “us & them.”
Hazony continues: “No universal ideology—not Christianity or Islam, not liberalism or Marxism—has succeeded in eliminating this intense desire to protect and strengthen the collective, or even in diminishing it much (pp. 74-75).” One would never know the claim has fact-content, given the push to Christian Nationalism in the US at the current time. Somehow the US was founded as a “Christian (ideology and theology) Nation” and it has to be returned to it. Why is the attempt to do exactly what Hazony claims is impossible back on the table?
Hazony Argues for Walls Around Nations
Hazony argues such “… walls are a necessary condition for all human diversity, innovation, and advancement, enabling each of these little fortresses to shelter its own special inheritance, its own treasured culture, in a garden in which it can flourish unmolested. Inside, what is original and different is given a space of its own where it can be tried and tested over the course of generations… every innovation that has brought about an improvement in understanding or industry, in law or morals or piety, has been the result of a development of this kind, beginning as the independent inheritance of a small human collective and then radiating outward… (p. 75).”
Well, not so sure about that: It seems innovation is about individual ordinary people having the liberty and freedom, while being given the dignity and equality of opportunity to innovate --- innovism as Deirdre McCloskey refers to it (see Lynne 2025) --- that produces innovation. Keeping people within the walls of a Christian (Fundamentalism) Nationalism or an Islamic Caliph, or a Chinese Communist Party, does not qualify.
All such walls are vertical power systems like the Patrimonies of pre-Enlightenment, and, said systems did not work. Innovation came out of the Enlightenment, as Nations became organized on the Rule of Law and horizontal power, not the hierarchical power Hazony seems to favor.
Hazony is extremely narrow in framing. It is made clear in the last paragraph of the section, as in the “… fortress walls of tribal language and culture can be seen as preventing novelties from spreading too quickly, giving time for what is misguided and destructive to be tried and found wanting, to run its course and die out, before all humanity is overtaken.” Hazony fears Progress, and is clearly a Conservative wanting to cling to the walls of some past time.
X: How Are States Really Born?
Hazony claims two ways: 1) formation of a free state, where the clans and tribes agree to operated on a shared other-interest, like the tribes of Israel. Other examples include “…the founding of the kingdom of the English nation unified under Alfred, or of the coming together of the Netherlandish tribes as a national state under the Dutch Republic, or of the establishment of a unified state by the English colonies in America, the United States (p. 80.” The other way is: 2) formation as a despotic state. Generally some outside entity arrives and takes over by force. In said case, the shared other-interest is forced and otherwise coerced.
Hazony does not buy the contention of most political philosophers who “… assert that the agency for establishing the state is the consent of each individual, and that the motive for this consent is a calculation that the establishment of the state will best protect his life and property.” Hazony argues it is a myth to believe a Nation is formed in said manner.
XI: Business and Family
Using DIT, Hazony basically argues the share other-interest is not in play. It is all about individuals seeking self-interest, so each is calculating such things how the Nation will protect individual life and property. As DIT makes clear, such payoff in self-interest is a force, but the payoff in the shared other-interest is also a force. Hazony claims the philosophers in the classical liberalism frame ignore the shared other-interest, which is questionable as Adam Smith clearly did not, as a case in point.
Hazony goes on to argue, using DIT here, that a business tends to emphasize only path 0G outcomes for everyone running and working in the business. Loyalty is not generally a key force. Yet, clearly many exceptions exist, as often employer and employee become dedicated to some product or other aspect of the business.
Hazony contrasts the frame of the business as being quite different from the family, which is in the main about shared other-interest. And, the problem with the Hazony claim: A family is only about heterosexual marriage and having biological children. Not. As DIT makes clear, a family can also include other arrangements, albeit the shared other-interest is key, it is not only a biology-based other-interest that works.
Hazony qualifies the claims a bit: “Some will object that (the) distinction between a business and a family is overdrawn. There is, after all, such a thing as divorce and estrangement within the family, just as there is such a thing as loyalty to one’s business partners (p. 87).” Yes, overdrawn, indeed. Every successful business and family must seek path 0Z outcomes: Me needs and We to Be, but without a Me there is no We, in every aspect of Being. It is just the nature of evolution. Similar efforts are at play at the levels above the family as in clan, tribe and Nation. Also, then for evolutionary success of such entities, as DIT makes clear, a balance must be struck in individual & community, self & other, Market & Government.
To Hazony, the same idea applies at all levels, and it is the shared other-interest on path 0M (often many of same) that binds as in “…due to the bonds of mutual loyalty that persist among its members. The free state, which is likewise constituted and able to endure only due to the bonds of mutual loyalty among its members, is in this respect a collective of the same kind as the family, albeit on a greater scale (p. 90).” The enterprise of the Nation is substantively different from the enterprise of a Business (the Market), with the latter putting focus on self-interest. As DIT makes clear, it is about a focus on the joint self & other-interest in both Business & Nation.
XII: Empire and Anarchy
Hazony draws an intriguing continuum from empire to anarchy, with different kinds of loyalty distinguishing same. The loyalty to the empire (and the emperor, King, Pater) is at one end. The loyalty to the clans and tribes in an anarchy at the other. Hazony rejects both ends as unworkable, as empire operates by force over entities who may not want to be loyal to the dominating group that formed the Nation. At the other extreme, the continual war among the clans and tribes does not lead to a workable Nation, either.
XIII: National Freedom as an Ordering Principle
Hazony claims the solution came with “… the distinctive Israelite institution of the national state, which seeks to transcend the dilemma of empire and anarchy by retaining what is most vital in each, while discarding what makes each of them most dangerous (p. 100).” For Hazony, it is about a number of tribes having a common language and religion that works to form the Nation. As DIT would clarify, a Nation which has an adequate overlap in shared other-interest from the tribes that works for reasoned people in all tribes. Hazony sees it as community: DIT sees it as the community of shared other-interest. Hazony sees it sitting at some point between the end-points of empire and anarchy. Hazony claims the ordering principle is national freedom, and using DIT to clarify, such freedom entails a common language, a fairly and equally applied rule of law, and religious influence not imposed order. Such freedom of the Nation means loyalty to the overall principles of said Nation, which would also serve to bound and influence the individual freedom to choose: Such freedom is on path 0Z in the typical DIT Figures 1 and 2.
Hazony in effect agrees with the DIT framing. Starting with the family: “A family is not, in other words, only a collection of individuals. It is also an entity possessing certain properties that belong to it as a collective, as a whole… can be said of larger human collectives such as the clan, the tribe, and the nation (p. 104).” Yes, both family and clan, tribe and Nation all have elements of I & We, Individual & Community, Self & Other, Market & Government with the goal to find path 0Z outcomes at every level. Also, freedom is joint, nonseparable as in “… (because) the individual is always bound by ties of mutual loyalty to his family, tribe, or nation, it is a mistake to suppose that he can have political (i.e., individual) freedom when the family, tribe, or nation is not free (p. 106).” Makes complete DIT sense: Again, freedom of choice is on path 0Z, where the individual has to sacrifice a bit in the domain of complete (libertarian) freedom to choose on a path 0G in order to enjoy true freedom on path 0Z. And, for the economic reader: The Milton Friedman claim of free to choose on a path 0G near the vertical axis guarantees economic inefficiency. It is a cargo-cult science based claim because it ignore the shared Ethic on path 0M (see Lynne 2025).
XIV: The Virtues of the National State
Violence is Banished to the Periphery
Families, clans and tribes set aside differences. The loyalty to the Nation overrides the “warring” among the factions. The common ground is located “… within a system of law, policing, and courts that is answerable to the national government, and so independent of the influences of particular family, clan, or tribal affiliation (p. 110).” Rule of Law widely agreed to, applied to all, and enforced is key. As DIT also adds: It is empathy-based ethics that serves to give content to good law.
Disdain for Imperial Conquest
Stable, viable Nations have a disdain for further conquest. It is only the empire that sees the need to conquer other Nations. Problem is: Said empires can never come to common ground, so become weak, inefficient, and unstable. Quoting Herder, such places lack shared “…bonds of sentiment.…” Yes: The shared moral and ethical sentiment, the shared other-interest is what holds the Nation together.
Hazony claims it was the frame of imperial quest, empire building especially by Germany that led to the massive destruction during both WWI and WWII. Hazony points to the McKinley era as the only when the US wanted to build empire, perhaps the reason the Trump-America frame is Mckinley, as in the symbolism of renaming Denali to Mount McKinley. It is America becoming an empire, once again, conquering Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. It will not go well.
Collective Freedom
Hazony speaks to the need for many Nation states to form on common ground within each Nation. With said stability within, empire building will not take place unless some Nation gains too much power relative to all other Nations. The balance of power among Nations, to Hazony, is mainly needed to assure no one Nation decides to become an empire. With internal Nation building, “… the national state permits the energies of the national leadership to be directed toward creating a thing of real worth: a unique land and people with a character and truth that is their own (p. 128).” Well, yes, as long as the leadership does not stir tribal warfare.
Competitive Political Order
Hazony is skeptical of reason, the notion of universal reason as encouraged by the Enlightenment. Hazony seems almost anti-Enlightenment, perhaps of the Dark Enlightenment frame, claiming empirical experience needs more attention, which to Hazony puts a greater emphasis on religion. Hazony comes down on the side of empiricist in contrast to rationalist theories of the best political order. Hazony proceeds to claim the socialists get it wrong (rational planner) and the capitalists get it right. In effect, Hazony is buying into the claim of the spontaneous order, dispersed information claims of the cargo-cult science SIT theorists.
The fact is: One needs essential fact-based information in a joint effort between Market & Government. It is not just the Market that brings relevant information into the decision process. Often the most reasoned, science-based fact-content comes from the professionals and scientists working in Government. It is not just the Market that is essential.
Hazony does make an important point, that diversity in culture across Nations often has helped in bringing the best ideas forward for all to consider. Empires as the political order have never been as successful as the political order of many independent states. Hazony borrows the idea of competition from economists to explain that independent states compete with better overall outcomes for all countries. Hazony calls for a competitive political order among Nations.
Hazony claims it is the empiricist that sees the gains of competitive political order. Hazony is critical, ironically, of Hayek who was all in on freely competitive markets and, Hazony claims, saw Nations as counter to same. The concern here is with a single economic system across the Spaceship Earth rather than many economic systems, one in each Nation, each competing with other economic systems. Hazony is against any kind of supranational government entity, but rather favors many Nations working to find common ground while remaining independent of the other. As DIT clarifies, in making better sense of the Hazony claim, a Nation would work on path 0G, but does better by finding common ground as path 0M is worked out among all Nations, and every Nation finds a better path 0Z as result of the common ground among all Nations. Another way to say: Some empathy-based cooperation makes for huge gains for all Nations, as in empathy-based tariffs which generally always move toward zero.
Individual Liberties
Hazony introduces the section with: “The independent national state is the best institution known to mankind for establishing collective freedom and self-determination. But collective freedom is not identical with the freedom of the individual.” DIT clarifies it is about a joint Individual & Collective freedom on path 0Z. DIT also clarifies that the homonomy of self-determination as in the Individual voluntarily choosing the better path 0Z is generally better. Yet, DIT also clarifies that sometimes, especially when self-command fails, the heteronomy of the Community: Government needs to be in play to bring the better outcome on path 0Z.
On the latter, banning slavery comes to mind. Also, the heteronomy of environmental regulations to ensure the Cuyahoga River never catches on fire again, in that when it did it precipitated the formation of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Sometimes the heteronomy of control and coercion is essential. Being free to choose without adequate consideration of the shared other—interest --- not considering the human right to not be a slave, and not engaging in the need to sustain the Spaceship Earth system --- does not always work
Hazony goes on to argue the empires never adequately evolved individual liberties. Reason? Hazony claims that too much difference exists among the clans, tribes, and Nations the empire tries to control. Nations with individual & collective freedom can only arise when the families, clans, and tribes have some common ground for building mutual loyalty. Hazony claims the core is represented in the language and the religion. Nations who accomplished said building of a shared other-interest, a mutual loyalty that served to temper the individual are represented in places like the Netherlands, England, and, the United States. Well, perhaps.
DIT sees many sources and ways for evolving a shared other-interest, and while language and religion can be significant players, it is more about acting out on the capacity for empathy-with the other. The starting point to a shared other-interest and loyalty leading to mutual loyalty starts with mindful empathy, on the way to joining in sympathy-with the other. It is about finding concordance with a set of values, beliefs and attitudes that reasoned people can go along with, including the overall shared value of individual liberty, freedom, dignity and opportunity. Hazony does not have any explanation for the source of such things, other than the claim that it developed early in Hebrew thinking. So, where did such thinking come from?
DIT has a better explanation. It came from the nature of evolved human nature. The only individuals that survived were individuals that joined in shared interest in said survival with other individuals. The empathy had to temper the ego. The shared other-interest had to temper the arrogance of self-interest only. It is in our Evolutionary Biology, confirmed in Evolutionary Paleontology. And, sure, it could well be far more easily accomplished on a smaller scale like a smaller area of a Nation, which makes empathy-with more feasible. It is more possible for empathy-with to play a role in tamping down the arrogance of self-interest within a family, clan and tribe on a smaller scale: Too much diversity across said entities makes it ever more difficult to find common ground.
XV: The Myth of the Federal Solution
Hazony claims liberal thinkers --- even Frederick Hayek --- get it wrong. A supranational, “federal” government for the entire Spaceship Earth could never work. Using DIT, only many smaller Nations each built on internally evolved common (shared other-interest) ground, with said Nations then working to find Spaceship-wide common (shared other-interest) ground, can work.
Hazony weaves an intriguing and stimulating story about how the United States has used federalism in productive ways to help evolve and mold some common ground among what started as more or less independent colonies a the time of the revolution. Hazony points to the civil war over slavery, and later involvement to take down Jim Crow. Civil Rights, Voting Rights and other Federal Law has helped keep the common ground, the widely-shared other interest using DIT framing, not only installed but maintained.
And, while Hazony does not mention it, many other shared other-interest realms have been created, molded and maintained through Federalism, as in programs like Social Security, Soil and Water Conservation to sustain agricultural productivity, Medicare, Health and Safety Regulations, Social Safety Nets to include unemployment insurance, public investment in research and science, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Varying degrees of Homonomy and heteronomy are at play in all said efforts.
Hazony wants to claim, however, that Federalism has gone too far in the United States. The (unfounded, lacking in empirical evidence) claim is that States are not enough independent. DIT suggests more empirical evidence is needed to support said contentions, especially given the rise in Christian Nationalism which is not good for any State being framed by it. And, ironically, some States being run by Christian Nationalism are having an inordinate influence on the Federal Government, which in fact is a huge problem in the United States here in 2025.
Hazony also weaves an intriguing story about the European Union (EU), claiming it is one step away from being an old-styled European Empire, like the attempt at building German Empire of old. According to Hazony, the EU has far too much central power over the formerly independent Nations of Europe. All it needs, Hazony claims, is the emergence of a an Executive, an Emperor (or, a President with Emperor type powers) at the head of the EU, and empire will be in place. Hazony goes so far as to clam that if that Executive is German that the EU becomes the much sought after German Empire of old.
Overall, Hazony seems to favor some Federalism, something akin to the United States perhaps back in the late-1800s. It is doubtful that level of Federalism could work anywhere, and certainly not in the complex modern system that is the United States.
XVI: The Myth of the Neutral State
Hazony weaves an extremely pessimistic story along the lines that Federal Government --- using the DIT framework --- works only to serve the self-interest of the politicians and government leaders. The notion of a truly empathy-with ordinary people, empathy-with citizen politician or government leader like an agency head is completely denied. So, even the American Federal Government is “not neutral,” and, Hazony claims the European Union is insensitive --- lacking in empathy-with using DIT framing --- people in the member countries of the EU. Ironically, Hazony apparently believes leaders of Independent States are neutral, but leaders of Federal Governments within which said States are embedded are not and cannot be neutral.
Meaning of Neutral
The meaning of neutral needs some clarification. DIT would suggest that neutral means a situation where common ground was found among the Independent States. Clearly the American and European Federal Governments more often than not operate on said common ground, and, are neutral in that sense. Hazony also fails to see that sometimes the Federal Government is actually doing the best thing while not being neutral with regard to the Independent States unwilling to do the best thing, like eliminating slavery and establishing environmental regulations in the United States.
Yet, Hazony has a point: The American Federal System put in place with the US Constitution took control over, forced Native American Tribes onto reservations while taking land area from same. Such Federal action was coercive and clearly not neutral. Intriguingly, however: It is likely the shared other-interest of the Territories on the way to becoming States were all in coercion of the Native Tribes: The “manifest destiny” as the shared other-interest comes to mind.
Too Much Diversity May Make It Impossible to Form a Nation
Hazony goes on to highlight reasons why places like Iraq and Syria were never successful at becoming stable and viable Nations. Said Nations were imposed on clans and tribes that could not find common ground, at least not when imposed from the “Federal” level. Hazony then points to Israel, which has become a viable state because the tribes within could find common ground in Hebrew and Jewish history, and the shared Bible. DIT easily explains it, while also pointing to the difficulties of going into empathy-with too many divergent groups. The challenge of empathy-based shared other interest is also exacerbated by distance, and unfamiliarity with other, such as in vast land mass areas like China and Russia.
Hazony Takes an Extreme Position on Religion Being at the Core of a Nation
Hazony goes to the limit on the frame, as in the more or less successful Nations (like Britain, France, United States) are places where all peoples no matter the background of race, religion and culture “… assimilate themselves into the system of expectations established by the constitutional and religious culture of the majority nation, learning its language and resorting to violence only on rare occasions (pp. 165-166).” The constitutional underpinnings make good sense, as in all people are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
Hazony puts far more weight into the role of religion than a reasoned person would generally accept. As DIT clarifies, Church must be kept separate from State, which does not preclude influence of religion on state, nor of state on religion. In fact, DIT would represent it as State (path 0G) & Church (path 0M). Yet, DIT would also clarify that the imposition of religious fundamentalism on the individual leads in instability and inefficiency unless it has somehow passed the empirical test coming out of serious inquiry into science & humanities. It also has to not only pass the scientific test looking at the science, but also empathy-with test looking at the humanities, on the way to concord. The case of gender science & ethics suggesting fair treatment no matter where a person is born into a place on the gender spectrum comes to mind. Imposing some old passage from an old religious book onto someone is unacceptable unless it has passed the test of serious scrutiny using science & humanities.
As DIT clarifies, the Hazony point about common ground in a shared other-interest is key. The issue is the basis for it, with an Enlightened approach to forming the shared other-interest going well beyond such things as the Ten Precepts at Sinai, albeit said Precepts may also be a part of what comes to be deemed reasoned and reasonable. A better model is the empathy-based frame of the US Constitution, which was influenced by virtues and other understanding of what is reasoned as coming from religion, but far more is at stake. The empathy-based ethic is key.
XVII: A Right to National Independence?
Hazony starts with the claim that “…the best political order is one of independent national states (p. 167).” Yet, not everyone, e.g., the American South, Is justified in having an independent state. As Hazony says it, cases for independence are “… distinguished only in the balance of moral and prudential considerations for supporting or opposing independence in a particular case (pp. 171-172).” The fact the American South supported the abominable framework of slavery justified keeping same from becoming an independent state: It was a path 0M, a shared other-interest favoring slavery, that reasoned people could not go along with. As DIT clarifies, empathy-based ethics must play a key role and the dark empathy shared among too many in the American South did not pass the science & humanities test.
Such independent states must not only be built on shared moral and ethical grounds, as well as other shared interests coming from association among clans and tribes over longer periods, but must also be able to build military capability. Such capability is essential in order to defend said independent nation, and keep it from being overtaken by aggressors wanting to build empire. Hazony points to the case of Israel which was formed in 1948 and has satisfied all said requirements, and is now established as a legitimate, independent state. Hazony seems on solid ground to argue that “… a balance of considerations suggests a theory of foreign affairs that is very different from (President Woodrow) Wilson’s ‘idealism,’ which assumes that the principal concern of international order is the establishment and enforcement of a universal legal framework for guiding political affairs in accordance with the universal rights of nations (p. 173).” Well, perhaps so, if empathy-with the people within said Nation is influencing the content of said law, and, said new Nation can actually form a Government and a military to defend it.
XVIII: Some Principles of the Order of National States
Hazony suggests some principles as essential (pp. 177-180) 1) political independence to nations that are cohesive and strong enough to secure it, 2) non-interference in the internal affairs of other national states, 3) government monopoly of organized coercive force within the state, 4) the maintenance of multiple centers of power, 5) parsimony in the establishment of independent states, 6) protection of minority nations and tribes by the national government, and, perhaps the most controversial one, 7) non-transference of the powers of government to universal institutions.
The first one is essential to both economic and military independence. The second one requires other independent states to stay out of the internal affairs, assuming said internal affairs are empathy-based in ethics. The third one sees the key role of an internal government monopoly on the police power which ensures the clans and tribes, the factions within cannot take control, but also treats each fairly. The empathy-based ethic underlying the law is key. The fourth one ensures offsets to power, such that some self-righteous all powerful Nation does not work take control over all the other independent Nations. The fifth assures some reason in the number of Nations formed, as in an empathy-with based annexation, like East Germany annexed by West Germany after the wall came down. The sixth assures that even if a small minority within a Nation does not completely embrace the moral and ethical order, empathy must play some role: The Native American tribes come to mind, in giving some rudimentary status as in Tribal Nations within the Nation. The seventh seems to preclude doing such things as having environmental laws that must be Spaceship wide, across Nation boundaries, in order to ensure the very Spaceship on which all Nations travel together can be sustained. Hazony goes too far with the seventh principle. As DIT makes clear, the empathy-based ethic is key in all seven principles.
The seventh principle needs more attention, as DIT would see merit in some heteronomy at the Spaceship level, assuming it is based in serious inquiry coming from science & humanities. The problem of excessive greenhouse gas especially carbon emissions which are working to destroy Spaceship Earth ecosystems is a case in point. And, there are others, but Hazony wants all eliminated, as in claimed “… schemes for the establishment of a coercive international order—including attempts to establish the Security Council of the United Nations as having the authority to make binding determinations for all nations in matters of war and peace; or the World Trade Organization as an authoritative body regulating the economies of nations as a condition of their participation in international trade; or the UN Human Rights Council and various European courts as the highest moral authorities in matters concerning the dignity and welfare of individuals throughout the world (pp. 185-186).” Perhaps.
But, it seems empathy-based ethics coming out of the humanities, and science base assessments like determining the effect of excessive greenhouse gas emissions could well justify some heteronomous control at the Spaceship Earth level.
So, choose your next Part:
Comments