In the Brazilian Amazon, approximately 114 indigenous communities live in so-called voluntary isolation—24 confirmed and 86 awaiting full identification by government agencies. This paper explores the normative arguments for and against the current "no-contact policy" regarding these tribes. Since 1987, the Brazil’s policy has been to avoid and prevent contact with voluntarily isolated indigenous groups unless exceptional cir-cumstances obtain. This includes contact by public servants and third parties. Aimed at preserving these groups’ particular ways of life, such policy embodies a kind of "small-c conservatism"—the idea that intrinsically valuable and personally valued things should be preserved. "Big-C Conservatives," however, such as former President Jair Bolsonaro, often criticize the no-contact strategy on seemingly egalitarian grounds, arguing it with-holds integration, economic opportunities, and welfare services—such as health, educa-tion, and infrastructure—from isolated indigenous populations. Does this critique accu-rately reflect the normative reasons that apply to the no-contact policy? I hypothesize that not. The perceived clash between egalitarianism and the small-c conservative concerns arises from a flawed, "assimilationist" view of equality. Drawing on G. A. Cohen’s polit-ical theory, my goal is to reframe this debate to better grasp the state’s obligations towards voluntarily isolated tribes. First, I review the current state of the no-contact policy in Bra-zil, examining the challenges it addresses, the responses by authorities, and the historical evolution of these decisions. Next, I analyze the normative arguments for and against no-contact put forward in official documents and reports. Finally, I try to reinterpret the egali-tarian and small-c conservative normative theses underlying the debate, assessing their implications on maintaining or departing from the no-contact paradigm.
