There was a comment on the message board about the prevelance of brown libertarians. There was a contrast with China. Well-since no one pointed it out explicitly, look at the contrast between China & India (used in the pre-partition context). China is a monoracial (ideologically at least) nation-civilization where organizational unity has been the norm and systematic legalism has a negative historical reputation (Legalism) as opposed to personal rule. India is a multiracial (ideologically via caste and language) civilization where unity has been the exception to the rule, and in the past 1,000 years “unity” has usually been externally imposed (the height of the Dehli Sultanate & the end of the Mughal period under Aurangzeb as well as the British Raj). In India, decentralization and unity via interlinked structures of class, caste and religion that have axiomatic foundations as well as organic histories have a long history because of the lack of a strong state. Libertarians tend to favor “civil society” in lieu of government. In contrast, the central government in China has always been suspicious of civil society-religious orders, clans and secret societies, because it sees them as alternative power-structures that might threaten the central grovernment. Of course, the Chinese look toward their inter-dynastic non-unitary periods as times of chaos so anything that dimishes central power and encourages centrifigal tendecies are viewed through that lens. South Asians are probably less amenable to hegemonic rule by a strong state because that state will tend to be dominated by another ethno-religious group, and they would rather have power delegated to the family or village.