A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, And Even Libertarian

[Thor]

But otherone was correct that Thor was spouting Antifa rhetoric. The Antifa are against immigration bans. But they are not for Islam. The hard core of the Anmtifa are all devout Socialists and Communists. And not in the mamby-pamby Obama way either. They're full blown Marxists and hate all religion, seeing religion itself as their enemy that needs to be wiped out. Thor's fallacious characterization of Islam is exactly what Antifa believe about all religion. Their "defense" of Muslims now is merely a convenience as a way to oppose Trump and his fascist cronies in the Alt. Left. Given time and power, Antifa will turn on Muslims just like everyone else. And creating laws that will allow the State to target and eliminate people for their religion -such as Islam- now only plays into Antifa's long term goals, laying the foundation to go after Christianity tomorrow. Thor is therefore spouting propaganda that only strengthens Antifa's long term goals.

Again LOLz

 

[CaptUSA]

Just because Liberty allows one the freedom to worship whatever god they want, does not give those who would violate the NAP and who have a goal of control and removal of freedom and liberty, the rights to use the very same tool of freedom and liberty to their advantage to therefore take away freedom and liberty. Extending those rights to those who wish to remove your rights is like supplying a plethora of advanced weapons, with training on how to use them, to your known enemy before a battle. Only an idiot would do that.

Would you allow a confirmed and confessed child rapist to babysit your kids? You are taking away their Liberty if you don't.

What the hell are you even talking about?! You really think there is no individuality in the Muslim faith?! Talk about a serious collective mentality! Sheesh! I know many Muslims and none of them fit this caricature you've created in your head. My doctor is Muslim. Our kids used to go to the same school. I've played cards with him and we've had each other over for dinner on multiple occasions. He is by FAR more liberty-oriented than you. He sees people as individuals like I do. He doesn't make rash and false judgments about people based on what some boogeyman may have done. In other words, he's not a moron. (well, he doesn't eat bacon. So, obviously, he's not all put together. But, at least we can joke about it.)

Nice segue into child-raping, too! I suppose those strawmen are a great substitute for the boogeymen.

Man, where are these people coming from? In order to violate the NAP, there needs to be an aggression. The only aggression I'm seeing by an individual is by some of the posters in this thread. (not the sane ones, mind you, just the scaredypants that have been convinced brown people are trying to kill them and eat their babies.)

 

[otherone]

Man, where are these people coming from? In order to violate the NAP, there needs to be an aggression. The only aggression I'm seeing by an individual is by some of the posters in this thread. (not the sane ones, mind you, just the scaredypants that have been convinced brown people are trying to kill them and eat their babies.)

Which is more ironic?
"anti-fascists" who use violence to deny freedom of expression, or "libertarians" who believe that's what government is for?

 

[kahless]

What the hell are you even talking about?! You really think there is no individuality in the Muslim faith?! Talk about a serious collective mentality! Sheesh! I know many Muslims and none of them fit this caricature you've created in your head. My doctor is Muslim. Our kids used to go to the same school. I've played cards with him and we've had each other over for dinner on multiple occasions. He is by FAR more liberty-oriented than you. He sees people as individuals like I do. He doesn't make rash and false judgments about people based on what some boogeyman may have done. In other words, he's not a moron. (well, he doesn't eat bacon. So, obviously, he's not all put together. But, at least we can joke about it.)

Nice segue into child-raping, too! I suppose those strawmen are a great substitute for the boogeymen.

Man, where are these people coming from? In order to violate the NAP, there needs to be an aggression. The only aggression I'm seeing by an individual is by some of the posters in this thread. (not the sane ones, mind you, just the scaredypants that have been convinced brown people are trying to kill them and eat their babies.)

So you know a secular Muslim's that have since assimilated. What does that have to do with the 70-90% of foreign born that demand Sharia law and/or from regions that pose a significant jihadist threat?

The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system. Yet you expect to grow the libertarian movement by opening the flood gates of immigration to people that oppose your beliefs?

 

[CCTelander]

<snip>

Extending those rights to those who wish to remove your rights is like supplying a plethora of advanced weapons, with training on how to use them, to your known enemy before a battle. Only an idiot would do that.

Hold on a minute. Neither you nor I as individuals, nor any other individual, nor any group of us collectively have the just authority to "extend those rights" to any individual, nor to remove them from any individual unless and until that individual has violated the rights of another causing provable damage in real life, in the here and now. Rights are inherent in the individual and no outside agency has any just authority over them except in those very narrowly defined situations. You cannot act in prior restraint, based upon some fictional scenario that may or may not ever occur in real life at some undetermined point in the future. And you certainly have no just authority to use the violence of the state to assuage you own fears at the expense of the rights of others. Either we adhere to this simple, irrefutable truth or what we're supporting is something quite different from liberty.

Would you allow a confirmed and confessed child rapist to babysit your kids? You are taking away their Liberty if you don't.

Since child rapists have no inherent right to babysit anyone's kids, your analogy is epic fail and amounts to a straw man.

<snip>

 

[Swordsmyth]

Hold on a minute. Neither you nor I as individuals, nor any other individual, nor any group of us collectively have the just authority to "extend those rights" to any individual, nor to remove them from any individual unless and until that individual has violated the rights of another causing provable damage in real life, in the here and now. Rights are inherent in the individual and no outside agency has any just authority over them except in those very narrowly defined situations. You cannot act in prior restraint, based upon some fictional scenario that may or may not ever occur in real life at some undetermined point in the future. And you certainly have no just authority to use the violence of the state to assuage you own fears at the expense of the rights of others. Either we adhere to this simple, irrefutable truth or what we're supporting is something quite different from liberty.





Since child rapists have no inherent right to babysit anyone's kids, your analogy is epic fail and amounts to a straw man.

<snip>

No one has an inherent right to immigrate or naturalize here.

 

[CaptUSA]

So you know a secular Muslim's that have since assimilated. What does that have to do with the 70-90% of foreign born that demand Sharia law and/or from regions that pose a significant jihadist threat?

The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system. Yet you expect to grow the libertarian movement by opening the flood gates of immigration to people that oppose your beliefs?

No. I expect to promote liberty by, you know, promoting liberty. Treating each person as an individual instead of prejudging them by what you say 70-90% of other people that look like them may do.

 

[Swordsmyth]

No. I expect to promote liberty by, you know, promoting liberty. Treating each person as an individual instead of prejudging them by what you say 70-90% of other people that look like them may do.

Then go preach liberty in their lands, don't bring them here to destroy liberty and then try to MAYBE convert them and rebuild it.

 

[timosman]

That evidence overwhelmingly shows that ethnic heterogeneity greatly reduces support for welfare state spending because voters are less willing to support welfare programs if they believe that a large percentage of the money is going to members of a different racial or ethnic group.

What a bunk.

 

[Swordsmyth]

What a bunk.

But correlation and coincidence both equal causation, right?

 

[enhanced_deficit]

With busy news cycles it may have not come to our collective attention... so I'm going to remind everyone of little historic detail that I'm confident will change mind of OP and anyone else who may agree with such a ban.

Did you know that if such a ban had been in place few decades earlier, President Obama's muslim father may not have been here, historic President Obama may never have been born here inside the US or become first historic President of the US within few years of Iraqi Freedom?
Among other things, that would have meant no historic jubilations in 2008, no Obamacare, probably no gay wedding cakes in the military or outside/no Libya or Syria freedoms.

Sometimes quick fixes can be tempting but it should give us all a pause when we take time to consider the gigantic historic repercussions of such bans.

Case is rested.

/case

/thread

 

[Identity]

Out of all the creatures in the political jungle the lolbertarian is among the strangest. Whenever asked about demographics, voting, trends, and immigration policy it has the tendency to shriek out a piercing noise that can be interpreted as "muh constitution." However, when the subject is questioned on the specifics of the Constitution and the rather strict naturalization policies of the Founders, along with quotes and statements of said men, the lolbertarian retreats, grumbling, "muh austrian economics." Likewise, when the explorer points out that Austrian economics is a largely outdated, discredited 19th century economic theory that exists on the fringes of academia and largely outside of it (*ahem* Mises Institute) the Lolbertarian has a sneaky trick up hidden in his quills which comes in the form of, "muh NAP tho." However, when the inquisitive mind asks for a coherent definition of aggression and what exactly constitutes 'violence' he is met with silence and usual ambiguity until the Lolbertarian finally barks out, "RAWN PAWL!"


Now onto the usual An-Cap and Libertarian arguments:

Rights are inherent in the individual and no outside agency has any just authority over them except in those very narrowly defined situations.

Sounds like some strange metaphysical proposition here- what are rights and what is the objective epistemological source that one could use to derive these mysterious 'rights' so we can know when they end and begin? Sounds like a lot of assumptions and cultural baggage.

And you certainly have no just authority to use the violence of the state to assuage you own fears at the expense of the rights of others

You assume the State is inherently violent- however you merely presuppose [your own An-Cap interpretation of] the NAP in order to do so- my question to you is this: why don't you presuppose the State as an abstract entity (analogous to a platonic form) essential to human society and perhaps of a divine origin? Seems absurd to you (not to me) but it's equally as subjective as your presuppositions on the matter. Now whether or not the State, in its current western democratic-republic form, can choose to not accept people form x, y, and z countries? The answer will be a resounding yes. Demographics and voting do matter in America, sorry- if we accepted everyone from Europe, Latin America, and Asia then we wouldn't have an America anymore- we'd have a weird oligarchy with a single political party (in this case the Democratic Party) ruling things from now until the end of the USA. Ann Coulter brings this up and it's worth listening to- unless you can show me how a Republican or Libertarian could win a statewide election in California anytime soon.

Islam is NOT compatible with Liberty, by any stretch of the imagination. Islam is about compliance, control, and obedience.

I generally agree here- the hardest thing for me to accept growing older was that ideas have consequences. Things don't just exist in a vacuum Culture & religion do shape people differently- my religion (or at least how I interpret it) tends to be rather authoritarian and statist (with a heavy emphasis on absolute Monarchies) and that's also my outlook. Islamic worldview is dependent upon conquest and submission- there's little room for infidels in many contemporary Islamic countries. Contemporary. Not 600 years ago, although it hasn't gotten much better. Strangely enough Muslim countries are the exception to the rule of secularization- whereas everyone else became gradually liberal and secular since the 60's the Islamic nations went in the complete opposition direction. Compare 70's Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran to their counterparts today. Disturbing stuff. Accepting them en masse isn't beneficial for us, sorry. One would be wise to look at the mass Islamic immigration into Europe and see how well assimilation and integration has worked out there. When the noble AfD were putting up posters in the inner cities the youths came and ripped them down one by one, with massive 'protests' (riots) and typical nonsense. Does that sound like a model group? One that can't even accept the moderate, "hey we are taking in too many immigrants here.." type position? No- they don't care because they don't have their new nations' interests at heart, they'd rather see their religious-ethnic interests promoted. That's a problem- deal with it. Don't just say "muh individualism tho," that shit isn't an argument.


I remember asking a question on this very forum years ago, which was how do we build a Libertarian society if we had a policy of mass immigration or even [god forbird] open borders? The answers were all subpar and regurgitated Ayn Randian nonsense (INdividualismm!@!!1!1!!). But when looking at what's tangible and actual trends we see the results of mass immigration- pure Democratic bloc voting. California is now lost forever, more states will follow. All you'd need to do is flood a few swing states with third world migrants and BAM- goodbye to the national GOP. That's the reality of the situation we face here. So what's the solution? Trump's RAISE Act plan is a good start, but we need to be even more severe than that eventually. Assimilation + birth rates stabilizing will give hope to whatever is left of our dwindling democracy. Inshallah.. or something.

 

[nikcers]

"muh austrian economics."

Muh straw man argument- economic interventionism doesn't work and it will fail.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/a-muslim-ban-is-logical-moral-and-even-libertarian/

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly paleolibertarian column since 1999,

This is where the writer of the Original Post fails greatest both factually and logically.
With some 2 billion Muslims in the world they are not all running around committing terrorists acts.
What the Original Post neglects to recognized, is the fact the perpetrators of terrorists acts overwhelmingly belong to a small sub-sect of Sunni Islam called Wahhabi/Salafi - which includes the various Al Qaeda organizations, ISIS, Mujaheddin/Taliban, etc.
The Wahhabi/Salafi also happens to be based out of Saudi Arabia, funded, promoted and supported by Saudi Arabia. They also happen to be funded and armed by Washington for its geopolitical objectives.
A more logical argument by the Original Post would be a ban on Wahhabi/Salafi and Saudis. A ban on all Muslims is the equivalent of a blanket ban on all Christians based on the acts of the IRA in during twentieth century.

When you consider there are 2 billion Muslims in the world, proportionally (and likely in absolute numbers) there are far more Americans involved in terrorists acts (drone assassinations, bombing civilians, invading nations, regime change, creating funding and arming terrorists organizations, etc.). The belief system behind these terrorists acts happens to be the neocon philosophy. It is also the neocons' policies that have been creating, arming, funding and using these Wahhabi/Salafi terror organizations.

Agree. Lumping all Islam together serves the agenda of the neocon, leftist, globalist establishment.

The neoconservatives want to conflate the Salafi Jihadists with other branches of Islam to make them all look bad. The open borders left wants to do the opposite, they want to dilute the Salafi Jihadists in with others to make them all look acceptable for immigration. And confuse everyone in the process. Quite a strategy.

The OP author (Mercer) is being a useful idiot for the establishment.

An analogy of this lumping together would be to say that just because some radical offshoot of Christianity was pushing violent ideology, all Christians should be suspect.

The media loves to call these attacks a "lone wolf" attack. Purely an attempt at political correctness. If an organization or nation is at war, and is instructing the members or followers of that group to engage in attacks, there is no "lone" about the attack.

Now the media has conflicting agendas at work here. In order to be politically correct, and push the leftist globalist narrative, they don't want to blame any particular group. On the other hand, the neoconservative side of the media wants to infer blame on groups that are not involved, thus they will use the blanket term of Islam.

But to be accurate and specific, modern terrorist attacks in Europe and the US are by Salafi jihadists, which is a subset of Sunni Islam, thus it does not apply to all Muslims, does not apply to Shias, does not apply to all Sunni's and does not apply to all Salafists.

Who does it apply to? Wahhabism is a subset of Salafism. The best examples of practitioners of the terrorist brand of Salafi Jihadist Islam are ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Saudi Arabia is officially Wahhabist, so the radicalized jihadi version often has connections to that nation, although Salafism is a transnational movement. Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood sometimes refer to themselves as Salafists, which is probably a way for them to claim greater numbers internationally.

Bottom line: don't expect any accuracy in reporting from the media, who have their own agendas that require them to be intentionally vague.

 

[Thor]

What the hell are you even talking about?! You really think there is no individuality in the Muslim faith?! Talk about a serious collective mentality! Sheesh! I know many Muslims and none of them fit this caricature you've created in your head. My doctor is Muslim. Our kids used to go to the same school. I've played cards with him and we've had each other over for dinner on multiple occasions. He is by FAR more liberty-oriented than you. He sees people as individuals like I do. He doesn't make rash and false judgments about people based on what some boogeyman may have done. In other words, he's not a moron. (well, he doesn't eat bacon. So, obviously, he's not all put together. But, at least we can joke about it.)

Very little individually if they are devout. Many muslims, when in the minority, go along to get along (don't rock the boat); but when they become the majority, then everything changes (time to promote themselves to Capt.) I am sure your doctor is great, but ask him what he thinks of Sharia Law, apostates, woman's rights, while enjoying a BLT at the table with him. Again, did you watch any of the videos? Care to comment on those "boogeymen" the videos reference? The statistics that many "peaceful" muslims actually beleive what Islam teaches even though they may not have the balls (now) to practice it....

Hold on a minute. Neither you nor I as individuals, nor any other individual, nor any group of us collectively have the just authority to "extend those rights" to any individual, nor to remove them from any individual unless and until that individual has violated the rights of another causing provable damage in real life, in the here and now. Rights are inherent in the individual and no outside agency has any just authority over them except in those very narrowly defined situations. You cannot act in prior restraint, based upon some fictional scenario that may or may not ever occur in real life at some undetermined point in the future. And you certainly have no just authority to use the violence of the state to assuage you own fears at the expense of the rights of others. Either we adhere to this simple, irrefutable truth or what we're supporting is something quite different from liberty.

It is not a fictional scenario. Look at Europe. Turning the other cheek to give someone who follow an anti liberty and anti freedom agenda is just plain stupid, even if it violates their "rights." Rights are reserved for those who wish to preserve and respect everyone else's rights. It is not for those whose ultimate goal, by declaration of their faith which decries conquering and making everyone convert or perish, hence trampling and revoking said rights (even if they are currently acting like get along Charlie's.)

No. I expect to promote liberty by, you know, promoting liberty. Treating each person as an individual instead of prejudging them by what you say 70-90% of other people that look like them may do.

Again, you haven't watched any of the videos... Like what happened in London when they took took over neighborhoods...

 

[Thor]

So you know a secular Muslim's that have since assimilated. What does that have to do with the 70-90% of foreign born that demand Sharia law and/or from regions that pose a significant jihadist threat?

The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system. Yet you expect to grow the libertarian movement by opening the flood gates of immigration to people that oppose your beliefs?

Then go preach liberty in their lands, don't bring them here to destroy liberty and then try to MAYBE convert them and rebuild it.

The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system. Don't bring them here to destroy liberty and then try to MAYBE convert them and rebuild it.


Bingo! We have a winner!

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Thread like this are why I can hardly post here anymore. I get it now though, a sizable portion of Paul's support were never actually for individual liberty and basic human rights. The title looks insane to me.

No, since that is not a guide telling people how to behave or a government belief system pretending to be a religion.

While Sharia and this is a cause for concern.



If there was a Christian sect that had added bible scriptures that dictated to it's followers:

- the goal of achieving it's authoritarian state belief system.
- that members should become jihadists.
- that the lives of non-members are meaningless unless they convert.
- convert or kill the infidel.

I would be just as apt to support limiting immigration from that region as well.

That would be the Papal Bulls of the 1400s. Sending forth warriors to, "attack, conquer, and subjugate Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found." And that is just what they did. The Age of Discovery was quite ugly, the reverberations still rock us today. Interestingly, while the church started walking back on the slavery thing the next century, they did not walk it back concerning muslims for centuries more...

Man, where are these people coming from? In order to violate the NAP, there needs to be an aggression. The only aggression I'm seeing by an individual is by some of the posters in this thread. (not the sane ones, mind you, just the scaredypants that have been convinced brown people are trying to kill them and eat their babies.)

+1

Which is more ironic?
"anti-fascists" who use violence to deny freedom of expression, or "libertarians" who believe that's what government is for?

+1

 

[Ender]

Thread like this are why I can hardly post here anymore. I get it now though, a sizable portion of Paul's support were never actually for individual liberty and basic human rights. The title looks insane to me.



That would be the Papal Bulls of the 1400s. Sending forth warriors to, "attack, conquer, and subjugate Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found." And that is just what they did. The Age of Discovery was quite ugly, the reverberations still rock us today. Interestingly, while the church started walking back on the slavery thing the next century, they did not walk it back concerning muslims for centuries more...



+1



+1

^^^THIS^^^

 

[Swordsmyth]

That would be the Papal Bulls of the 1400s. Sending forth warriors to, "attack, conquer, and subjugate Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found." And that is just what they did. The Age of Discovery was quite ugly, the reverberations still rock us today. Interestingly, while the church started walking back on the slavery thing the next century, they did not walk it back concerning muslims for centuries more...

And how many Christians believe in those doctrines today? Where are they found in Christian scripture?

On what basis do you claim that ANY foreigner has a "RIGHT" to come here without our permission?


We have a muslim member of this site that shows that it MIGHT be possible for liberty to take root in their culture, see this thread:
[h=3]Scientific research should be privately funded[/h]But until it does we have a right and a duty to our children's children to limit or even ban immigration from ANY anti-liberty culture. (That may include most of the world at this point)

I repeat what I said above: Go preach liberty in their lands, don't bring them here to destroy liberty and then MAYBE convert them and rebuild it. (GOOD LUCK STAYING ALIVE IF YOU START TO HAVE MUCH OF AN IMPACT BY THE WAY)

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

^^^ Strawman serving up a red herring... #NoThanks