I agree. Yet we have many anarchists talking precisely about the formation of intentional communities as a good thing under anarchy.
I really don’t understand where that perspective comes from and how an anarchist can possibly think that such communal homogeneity can be a result of freedom of association. I will grant that some degree of homogeneity is possible in a free society, but nowhere near to the extent that some are advocating. I don’t see how the degree of homogeniety that they are seeking, in a modern industrial society, can possibly come about in the absence of coercion.
By virtue of the fact that they control access to the township and can exclude others from entering, they can deny access to the mosque.
So you’re arguing for a surround and deny situation. What if the mosque runs a helicopter service to take people in and out? But anyway, it seems likely that the Satmar who owned the land before had an easement, which would transfer to the new owner, would it not?
Wow. Just wow.
They burn the mosque down and chase the Muslims away.
Are you being serious? You do realize this would constitute arson against a legitimate property owner, correct? Do you really have that strong of a personal bias against other ethnic or religious groups so much that you would do anything to enforce your preferences, even violate your own self-proclaimed principles? This conversation is getting nutty. At such a point it’s clear that your reasoning and motivation has nothing to do with concern for liberty and everything to do with a mere blind hatred of certain groups of people.
Speaking of which, upon driving last summer in a rural and highly “white” area of Ohio, I saw a great big Mosque popping out of nowhere in a landscape of fields. How did it get there? Clearly someone was willing to sell the property to Muslims. I think it would be absurd to say that the Mosque is only there because of state-enforced integration.
An easement is a right of way through someone else’s property. If the mosque has a right of way out of the township, then it is not part of the township. The township would then have a strong interest to purchase the easement long before any such conflict arose.
As an anarchist myself, I am a supporter of the Libertarian Party. The more publicity even “moderates” get for the LP, the more publicity minarchists and anarchists get.
If the LP could become a majority party, we’d be only one or two steps away from true minarchism and a few more steps away from free market anarchism.
In essence, I see the game plan like this: get the “moderate” libertarianism popular, and start pushing people towards a more principled free market stance.
I don’t think Gravel will win the nomination anyways.
Look, I’m an anarchist too, but giving the LP more attention will get all libertarians more publicity and therefore more followers. We need to start out somewhere (the LP) first before moving on to more radical ideas (true minarchism and eventually anarchism).
Federal law prohibits religious discrimination in the sale of houses. A property owner refuses to sell to a religious or racial minority at his peril. Also, immigration policy is set in Washington DC, not rural Ohio, which again, under federal law, is prohibited from having any say in the matter. There’s a big, fat government externality plopped down in your happy multi-cult vision.
If you seriously mean to imply that the mosque could not possibly have gotten there without the employment of federal discrimination laws, I think that’s highly disingenous. Your worldview seems to think that all cases of integration are involuntary. I think that’s absurd.
I have no “happy multi-cult vision”. I only happen reject your highly nationalistic, separatist, downright racist vision.
Muslims aren’t a race, brother. And why did you throw separatist in there? You’re revealing more about your own prejudices than you should
I’m telling you what the Hasidim would be likely to do in such a situation, not me necessarily. The point is the Hasidim want their own townships where they can raise their families in a kosher environment without having to worry about false religions setting up shop. I can blather on all I want about my right to open a barbecue joint and raise pigs out back, but in the absence of the State and its civil rights laws or me having more guns than my neighbors, I do so at my peril.
I don’t think that. But I do know that voluntary segregation is perceived as so great a threat by the State that it passes numerous and draconian laws against it.
Can we be a little careful here? It is not voluntary segregation if the Satmar let it be known that they will burn down a mosque that someone has the nerve to try to build in Boro Park. That said, if the community wants to keep the mosque out, it has options. For instance, you can take up a voluntary collection from everyone in the community, and use the money to outbid any Muslim who tries to buy land. You might run out of money eventually - oh well, you don’t get to control the whole community without paying for the right to do so.
I don’t understand the point made on easements. An easement is an understanding tied to the land. For example, if I purchase a plot of land in the middle of your land, you grant an easement to let me in and out, otherwise it’s worthless to me. Supposing the land already has an easement attached to it, and then is sold for the building of a mosque. The point is, to now not permit Muslims access to it is aggression. This might well be what the community will do. Now it is acting as a government, not a voluntary community.
I threw separatist in there because it’s blatantly obvious that you advocate separatism. This should be rather clear as your posts on this topic obviously indicate that you desire cultural separatism as an end in and of itself.
That is not correct. The purpose of buying property inside a community is to benefit from the services offered from that community, such as sewers or garbage disposal, roads, and so on, without having to produce them yourself. The benefit of exclusivity is also valuable. If I accept that I cannot invite anybody I please in the community, and so do my neighbors in return, then my property is safe from potentially negative neighborhood externalities. If I were to produce this myself, I would need to own a much greater estate than I am willing to bear the cost of.
That’s the first time I’ve seen the word separatism used in that sense. Perhaps you mean segregationism? The proper segregation of conflicting cultural communities into areas of exclusivity, more residential, and areas of contact, more commercial, is necessary to prevent conflicts over cultural practices.
So the solution, then, is to change the policy to state-enforced segregation?
Note: for the bulk of the history of states, the main policy was state-enforced segregation.
I don’t buy into the notion that the co-existance of people of different cultures or ethnicities or religions inherently leads to conflict. This seems like a rather hobbesian view that I’ve seen put foreward by white nationalists I’ve talked to. I co-exist with all sorts of people who I disagree with about all sorts of things, but I’m simply neutral to them so long as they don’t actually force their way of life on me. I see no logical reason not to associate with them or sell stuff to them or buy stuff from them so long as they don’t have a gun to my head. I have something of an incentive to associate with them, and at the end of the day even if I exist in the same community as them for the most part I do not have to actually encounter them. I don’t have to invite them into my home or be their friend or live up to any unchosen positive obligation to them.
At the end of the day we go into our own homes where we never encounter eachother at all. If we wish to leave our homes we have reason to associate on at least a basic level but other then that we just let eachother be. They can practise their religion, I don’t care. They can persue their own sexual practises, I don’t care. They can do whatever they want in their own personal affairs and in their own homes. It doesn’t directly effect me. So I see no reason why I cannot co-exist with them without any unecessary conflict. My question to advocates of segregation would be: why do you care about other people’s personal affairs? I don’t. The mere existance of disagreement does not inherently necessitate conflict or violence. Segregation is not necessary, nor is it some kind of iron law of nature that people always segregate.