Libertarian pacifism

Economics Political Theory
81

I’m opposed to the welfare state as much as you. But I figure that over time an increased diversity of ethnicity and cultural norms will result in a positive correlation with the Libertarian mindset of a population (i.e., it is immigration, not the welfare state that will produce such results).

I agree with this, of course. In fact this was my view even in the days of my leftness. But I maintain that one of the best counter activities to racism is not, as you would point out, coercion, but providing minorities with the rights to protect themselves. I completely know what you mean about not all racists being violent but there is a problem with general thuggery, especially in largely white dominated areas where an Asian might be trying to set up a shop or, conversely largely Asian or black dominated areas where a white man will feel intimidated. I was watching a documentary about an Asian woman suffering intimidation from both whites and blacks in the local area. My beliefs are that shop keepers and business owners should be able to bandy together to employ security for the street - an armed patrol guard or CCTV, for instance - for safety of themselves, their own business and that of the consumer.

Agreed. But minorities must have the ability to defend themselves, which is precisely why gun laws ought to be liberated. An interesting point is that if you abolish democracy, people will feel less threatened about immigrants voting them out of their wealth and be more willing to just live and let live. The welfare state does cause a lot of social problems. But I still maintain the total legitimacy of open borders under any circumstance. It seems certain Libertarians like Rothbard are against tarriffs and controls when it suits them but for them when it does not. That said, Rothbard did take a far more extreme stance than me, being an anarcho-capitalist and all.

Oh yeah sure they’re nice people and all and a lot of them who are in favour of sharia law have good intentions, like a lot of left liberals who are in favour of welfarism, environmentalism, et cetera but inevitably the ideology slows down economic growth and prosperity though they cannot see this; they can only see greedy rich people.

I can’t remember the exact statistics. I do believe that a lot of Islam (as with many, many other religions, though, to be fair) is highly economically backwards.

Not sure. If there are, they only use it to solve disputes within their own community and have no relevance to the broader population.

Indeed. If only people could just live by their own cultural norms and beliefs, I believe the world would be a much happier place.

82

You won’t ever find a set in stone definiton of what Sharia law is in the first place- it means different things to different people within the Muslim community. For example in my own perspective of Sharia law- it cannot be imposed on anyone, doesn’t include things like stoning people to death(and countless other things that have no basis in what I would consider Islamic law), and has really only to do with matrimony, inheritence, amd property rights. Such as paying the women the dowry they are due when you get married. But either way its only law that is agreed upon by Muslims in the first place. It can’t be forced onto people who don’t believe in it.

Perhaps look at the demographic who want “Sharia” law and figure out what their background is? Is it Somalian law? Pakistani tribal law? Afghan tribal law? What laws do they really want? Just saying “Islamic” law is going to bring about quick assumptions which’ll only confuse you.

Islam is very pro-property rights. I don’t see it at all as being economically backwards. Then again I don’t see much “Muslim” countries caring for property rights at all- but the political game has always been the same gangsterism that its always been, there aren’t any morals to find here.

83

I don’t know any Muslims who want to establish Sharia law. None zip. And I know hundreds of muslims.

84

But you know collectivizing is just so easy to do. He could probably say “I know about 100 muslims that want to establish sharia law” where can the conversation go then? I think its always best to forget meaningless labels and focus on what individual actors want to do and react accordingly if they give you any personal threats.

What does it even mean for 40% of UK Muslims to want sharia law? Does that mean that one family can decide that they want blood money for a guilty party who had murdered one of their kin instead of putting them in prison? Is that really so dangerous to the UK lifestyle? I mean it just means different things to different people.

85

They are? That’s interesting.

I don’t know any either, the ones I “know” are what I heard from the media.

@Evilsocialistfellow

Is it true that firearms are illegal in UK? If so, statistics mention that crime has risen because of that. I’d like to know from a citizen point of view. Has crime lowered in UK ever since guns were banned, from your angle?

86

I was trying to avoid making generalisations here about Sharia law since it isn’t something I know a lot about and not something I want to get into. I didn’t mean to imply it was in favour of stoning women to death but that from what I had read it was very pro-welfare state. Since it has religious connotations, regardless of the economic theory backing it; left wing, right wing, pro-liberty, whatever, I think it is wrong to establish it. What about the Christians, the Atheists and so forth who want the state (assuming we are talking about a state here and not anarcho-capitalism, in which case it is 100% justified for muslims to settle their disputes via sharia law if such is their want) to remain completely secular - specifically showing no bias to religion or non-religion thereof.

In regards to your second post, I apologise if I sounded antagonistic towards Islam, it was not my intent.

87

I know many religious Muslims too. I’ve simply never heard of Muslims wanting to establish sharia law from Muslims, but from non muslims. (I used to be Muslim too, I know a lot of the community, history and religious tidbits).

I don’t doubt they exist, I’m simply pointing out that a lot of people (not specifically you), sort of have this double standards, expecting there to be a high population of fundamentalists from Muslims. It’s sort of odd that I still find myself in the position of defending Muslims and Islam.

88

Hey no need for apologies you were just speaking from what you know. Again the thing about Sharia law is that it can mean different things to different people. I would never consider it as something that can be imposed on anyone. Even though all Muslims are required to provide charity, it certainly isn’t punishable by anyone other than God if you fail to provide it. So there is really nothing to impose anyway. However, are there some people who go by the name Muslim that may went to force their beliefs on others- I wouldn’t doubt it. This world is full of complexity. I just think its a bogeyman and nothing to be afraid of as a political issue.

89

You have to acquire a very specific licence and own a lot of property to acquire a shotgun or a firearm (even more so with a firearm). They aren’t illegal but rules and regulations are very tight.

Despite common misconception (and many British people believe this as well - including myself not so long ago), it is legal to purchase a handgun. But if the handgun is fired, or taken onto someone’s property without their consent, that is totally illegal and the handgun is regarded as a firearm for the sake of the law. I believe (not 100% sure) that you must also inform a local police station whennever you purchase a handgun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm No.

Having said that, when you compare the US and Sweden (which both have relatively liberalised firearm restrictions) with the UK, its hard to ignore that deaths by deliberate gun crimes as a percentage of the population are significantly higher than the UK. Having said that, the graph which revealed this information was biased and only accounted for something like 19 countries out of all 195 countries in the world. It is highly likely that there is no correlation whatsoever between guns per household and number of deliberate civilian deaths by firearm.

If you are asking me from a personal perspective, I have never had someone close die as a result of gunfire.

90

Is it just a matter or what people think, or is there some objective standard for finding out who’s right? Libertarian property rights theory is pretty clear…and largely sides with the Palestinians.

91

Ever consider why they hate Jews? Arabs and Jews used to get along a lot better than Arabs and Christians. The Muslims are the ones who let the Jews back into Jerusalem. If you perpetuate that little National Socialist racist state called Israel, and the American Imperialism that backs it, you’re just going to raise tensions and eventually you will be SOL when the hammer drops. Iran isn’t going to be backward forever, and Uncle Sam won’t always be there to throw money and guns at you.

And while I am not about to play Joe Sobran and claim the Palestinians are little angels the amount of slaughter and oppression the Israeli government engages in makes all the ‘private’ terrorism pretty trivial in comparison.

92

You can see what happened with South African whites when they ended apartheid. They are now afraid to leave their houses. The crime in south Africa became the worst anywhere. And that is the optimistic scenario. The pessimistic scenario is that Israel opens its borders, and Palestinians will decide to take revenge and open a campaign of terror only when they inside the borders and not outside of them. Remember, Hamas doesn’t just want Israel to disappear, it wants to kill all Jews. PLO might not have the same idea, but who knows? I know that both Arafat and Abu-Mazen said that they will not let a single Jew to live in Palestine. So it doesn’t look good. The hatred is too deep, its a good thing there is a highly secure border that separates them and us.

93

Yeah, but that’s what politics do: create lose-lose situations. There’s often no ‘good way’ out except abolishing the whole thing. However, that doesn’t somehow ‘justify’ the State engaging in the predation it does. When you oppress people they become desperate and hateful. Just like the Zionists

94

Ever consider why they hate Jews? Arabs and Jews used to get along a lot better than Arabs and Christians. The Muslims are the ones who let the Jews back into Jerusalem. If you perpetuate that little National Socialist racist state called Israel, and the American Imperialism that backs it, you’re just going to raise tensions and eventually you will be SOL when the hammer drops. Iran isn’t going to be backward forever, and Uncle Sam won’t always be there to throw money and guns at you.

And while I am not about to play Joe Sobran and claim the Palestinians are little angels the amount of slaughter and oppression the Israeli government engages in makes all the ‘private’ terrorism pretty trivial in comparison.

Correct, except I would say (with a couple notable exceptions) Arab Isalamic countries(and it ought be noted there are many many Arab Christians) and Christian relations have been unremarkable for all but the past 50 years. The European attitude to Jews through out history however is much more dubious, and it is the Middle East who has to deal with that bullshit because of that relationship.

95

That border wall will not keep you secure forever. There’s this thing about maintaining a high level of security for an extended period of time. You develop habit’s, and habit’s are a weakness when dealing with a strong and determined enemy. It’s only a matter of time before the revolts in the other Arab countries change the power structure to a less favorable one for Israel

I’m not Libertarian so much as an Individualist, but even I have to say that Israel is screwed. It’s only a matter of time before it happens. The actions of the state have sowed the fate of the Individuals living there. Israel should have tried to make peace with Arafat when he actually started to open up to them. He was the one person that had the ability to back the bloodhound’s(Hamas/Hezbollah) off the tree, and to let the racoon (Israel) out of the tree safely.

Obviously that bridge was burned, and it was quite likely that the State sponsored terrorist group from Israel did that dirty little deed.

On the original topic: Only Self-defense to point of stopping the opponent is ethical in my mind.

96

@Eugene

You embody my very criticism of idealism in any form, including libertarianism.

It’s similar to learning kata in karate class, like I mentioned in another post. Many of these idealistic libertarians make the philosopher’s flaw, as I think of it. They live in their head, thinking that reality has to conform to their schemata. The fact of the matter, though, is that it doesn’t.

Someone nailed it with the Islam posting. People like Ron Paul believe that if we left Muslim countries that it would greatly reduce their hatred for us. While I agree it would slightly diminish it, Muslim countries will hate us–and all other cultures and belief systems–for the religion’s duration.

You know how you can identify a libertarian idealist? Bring this point up and watch them immediately try to nullify it by comparing Islam with Christianity and Judaism.

97

@ Brutus, I have to ask, have you ever been to an Islamic country? Have you ever actually had first hand experience with these people?

98

@Brutus

I have been to a number of Muslim countries. For example Iran. Guess what people over there think of the US?

They want to move to the US. They emulate the US in so many ways. Seriously, people are pretty desperate to get over here, considering the government doesn’t give out many visas. Are they overly religious? No. You’d be shocked to learn about how big of an illegal alcohol market there is over there.

Your ignorance is showing.

99

I have to disagree with the general consensus on here with regards to Hiroshima. I do believe in non-aggression as a general rule and I oppose any mass bombing on civilians. But political idealogy and principles does not mean you can ignore or try and change the facts of history, it is foolish to try and condemn and dismiss Hiroshima’s importance just because it does not tie in with your political viewpoint.

It is something I have studied in quite a bit of detail and it does seem to me that Hiroshima was necessary. You have to consider the context of the war in which it was dropped, it was estimated that even at this point, the number dying every single month that the war contunued was in it’s hundreds of thousands. The Chinese in particular were dying in their millions at the hands of the insanse Japanese leadership. It seems to be undeniable that the bomb was the quickest way to end the war, any other method would have taken longer, inevitable leading to more deaths in the war.

And what was the alternative? It is probable that if the bomb had not have been used the US would have launched a ground invasion. Most would estimate that that would have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and taken significantly longer. The mindset of the Japanese is difficult to comprehend, citizens were engineered to do everything in their power to save their country, and death was far preferable to surrender. Look what happened after their defeat at Saipan, the Japanese ordered their civilians to commit mass suicide and they complied. It really was total war and it is unlikely the Japanese would have surrendered had the bomb not been dropped, certainly not in the time that they did.

Ends justified the means is a cliche but I believe it is accurate here, if ever there was an example of an necessary evil then Hiroshima was it.

100

Biggest problem I see is the Palestinians desiring a state.

Based on the region, the middle east should be a state free zone. I don’t think you’d see nearly the amount of problems.

Who do I blame? Israel, the Palestinian collective pushing for statehood, neighboring states, the U.S., etc. Pretty much any state or would-be state participating in the process.