I think one can be “anti-Islam” in the sense of denying all Muslims access to his own property, or not allowing Muslims to pray on his own property, and remain a libertarian. That’s just my opinion, though.
Yes, but that’s different than banning friday prayers.
I don’t understand. In one sentence you talk about “taxing” people, and in the very next sentence you say “no taxes”. This does not make sense. See “law of excluded middle.”
Second, I named the two dictates of libertarianism as property rights and non-aggression, and linked you to an excellent piece expounding this. How could you follow up by asking if aggression is a characteristic of a libertarian society?
All of the Judaic religions are based on statism and the goal of monopolising law through invoking some divine right. Today Islam preserves this the most fully of those religions and so in those aspects at least is clearly anti-freedom.
You can be against racism and be a libertarian but a libertarian society can’t persecute even nazis or the Westboro Babtist Church. At least not in the sense of imposing special taxes or banning klan meetings or anything.
A Nazi would be able to find store owners who would be willing to sell them goods even if many stores turned them away. If you owned a toll road why would you turn down traffic even if the guy had a swastica tattoo
What I meant was that you tax non muslims for associating with muslims while you don’t tax muslims and dont provide them with any service.
Let me make my question more explicit. How can a libertarian society change a group of people with beliefs or charactristics it finds threatening. It could be muslims , communists, socialists. The main objective is to change their beliefs not remove them from physical boundaries.
In other words, you’re talking about charging higher prices for any goods/services you sell to people who associate with Muslims?
I am assuming a minarchist state. Or some authority that applies to everybody.
What do you mean by “a libertarian society”?
A textbook libertarian society. Maximum freedoms. No restrictions on almost anything except violence and a small state for national defence and courts as arbitrators. And a small tidit on friday prayers , most prayers are done on loud speakers. What is generally called Azan. Along with muslims gathering in the mosque. While you can’t ban people from entering mosques I am pretty sure a libertarian society doesn’t allow you to barge your chants everywhere in public through loud speakers.
Oxymoron.
Oxymoron.
One. More. Time.
I named the two dictates of libertarianism as property rights and non-aggression, and linked you to an excellent piece expounding this. How could you follow by claiming aggression has a place in a libertarian society?
I thought that Islam meant “submission.”
Let me make my question more explicit. How can a libertarian society change a group of people with beliefs or charactristics it finds threatening. It could be muslims , communists, socialists. The main objective is to change their beliefs not remove them from physical boundaries.
What exactly do you find threatening about Muslims? Have you actually visited any of the Muslim countries? Do you really know what the people are like? Or are your beliefs soley based on what you see on TV?
I’m not sure what relevance this question has to the question asked, but perhaps one might find the threatening edicts of the religion to be threatening. Or perhaps they might even find (allah forbid) the threatening behavior threatening.
I actually held a positive view of muslims, I believed that the USA should apologize in big banners to the muslim world. Then I met many of them! And connected a lot of the dots. Although this discussion is offtopic so Ill not go into it here. But this quote by churchill covers a lot of the areas:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its
votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in
a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic
apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident
habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of
commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the
followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and
refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that
in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his
absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine,
must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of
Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the
influence of the religion paralyses the social development of
those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from
being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing
faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa,
raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that
Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the
science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization
of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient
Rome."
Moving on , Popper said this about tolerance:
“we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.” (they here means the intolerant)
As Rand once said: When you start with ‘because I said so’ You eventually end with a gun. So can a libertarian society ever suppress someone. I use the word society to denote a collective action.
I named the two dictates of libertarianism as property rights and non-aggression, and linked you to an excellent piece expounding this. How could you follow by claiming aggression has a place in a libertarian society?
Never claimed libertarianism allows aggression. Nor do I argue aggression as its futile. But is there a libertarian way for a libertarian society to change some groups behaviour? Muslims, nazis, stalinists.
Oh so these “taxes” in this libertarian society you speak of would be completely voluntary? A voluntary tax? Do we have a third oxymoron on our hands?
Never claimed libertarianism allows aggression. Nor do I argue aggression as its futile. But is there a libertarian way for a libertarian society to change some groups behaviour? Muslims, nazis, stalinists.
Except for appealing to change it, there really isn’t. But let’s assume area X is a territory with a libertarian society living on it. In the beginning it were mostly liberty minded people living there. Since there were no taxes the people prospered. The wages rose, so employers started recruiting people from outside. Some of them adopted many of the libertarian ideas, but most actually didn’t. A significant number of the newbies found it unfair that their wages were so low, while the old libertarian were becoming pretty rich. They also didn’t like the mores of the people there and were generally disgruntled. So they started forming a kind of party that aimed for assuming power over area X… Now, if that party would have become strong enough, it would sooner or later be able to implement a state-like structure on area X. They could even recon on the cooperation of some of the more mercantile-minded, yet short-sighted former libertarians to achieve their goal.
So this really leads to the question: Should a libertarian society limit access to it. Or should it be open to everyone, regardless of what these people may be doing in the future (Even, if this behavior could have been expected).
if X requires Y, and Y is incompatable with libertarianism, then libertarianism would have to be anti X right?
i would suppose people in a libertarian society would want to hire others with libertarian views and nonhostile idealogies to libertarianism?