The more diverse the material that gets unified (to a certain degree), the greater the value.
Let us follow the tradition and call such a “unity in diversity” an organic unity. Holding fixed the degree of unifiedness of the material, the degree of organic unity varies directly with the degree of diversity of that material being unified. Holding fixed the degree of diversity of the material, the degree of organic unity varies directly with the degree of unifiedness (induced) in that material. The more diverse the material, the harder it is to unify to a given degree.
A society that requires excessive unity and conformity is oppressive. A society with too many differences and too much diversity is disorderly and ripe for conflict. Organic unity ensures that diversity and unity remain in balance and are mutually constraining. (Here, we return to the integration of freedom and order.)
Organic unity, as the philosopher Robert Nozick sets out above, puts limits on pluralism. In other words, absent any unifying commitments, such as solidarity around the Law of Consent, excess diversity pulls the system apart, which means matters degenerate into chaos. This is why those whose core values and political objectives are, say, intersectionality and socialism, must put the Law of Consent first. Otherwise, defectors become a cancer to a consent-based system.
Both groups vie for political control of the system to transform it around their fundamental conceptions of the good. The paradox of pluralism is that we can maximize differences until a person or group is willing to cross that line, threatening violence to make others conform to their values.
Criminals, Chaos Agents, and Centralists are willing to crumple up the Law of Consent and toss it on liberalism’s pyre. Same with the Corvians and Maelites.
In a past article, I ranted about my distaste for activists and authoritarians. I didn’t mention that an activist is often an authoritarian-in-waiting.
Non-signatories to a Constitution of Consent, for example, are neither guilty nor innocent per se. They are, as it were, Schroedinger’s Citizens. That is why orthodox liberals—even so-called “anarchists”—invite chaos or concentrated power when they hold the view that unchecked movement into a system is a principle that ought never be questioned.
Alas, Consentia, even with a Constitution of Consent, is a skyhook of sorts, too. Until we can lock arms in solidarity, express our values, find some space, live our lives, and keep a protective membrane around our budding social order, there will be nowhere to put a crane.
E pluribus unum. Ex uno plures.