A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, And Even Libertarian

[kahless]

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,

.....For a Muslim ban is neither illogical, immoral, or un-libertarian.

Violent Jihad is not an ideology, as our Moderate Muslim friends keep calling it. Jihad is a pillar of a faith. That faith is Islam.

Christianity has just commemorated 500 years since its Reformation. Islam has yet to undergo a reformation; it’s still radical. Yes, there are many moderate Muslims. Perhaps a majority of them. But their existence and their moderate beliefs do not belie Islam’s radicalness.

The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn’t mean there is a moderate Islam—or that these moderates won’t sire sons who’ll embrace the unreformed Islam. The data show that young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out almost weekly across the West.
...
Religion is The Risk Factor, not chaotic countries-of-origin. It’s impossible to vet migrants not because of ISIS infiltration, or countries in disarray, but because Islam is a risk factor. Their Muslim faith puts Muslims in a security risk group.

Being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion. By “a risk factor,” I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam we have a religion that doubles up as a political system that counsels conquest, not co-existence. (“Islam’s borders are bloody,” cautioned Samuel Huntington.)

A preponderance of Muslims will remain dormant. But, as we see almost daily in the West or in the Muslim world (where Muslim factions vie for religious dominance), a Muslim individual could be “triggered” at any time to act on his radical religion.
....
In other words, all Muslims can thrive in America. But not all Americans will thrive in the presence of Muslims. Again, this is because the faith of Muslims is Islam. And Islam—the real or the imposter variety; it matters not—predisposes to violence. Some Americans will be hurt or die as a result of importing members of this militant faith.

More important, public policy is about aggregates. On the whole, it’s supposed to benefit, and certainly not endanger, the collective. Because of its immense potential to harm, libertarians believe the entity that executes public policy, the government, should do very little. And the duty of an American government is to safeguard its own citizens, not to welcome the world’s.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

In the process we may have to sanction ourselves also. Can you think of any bigger supporter of Islamic Jihad in recent decades than US based neocons?
Reagan was founding father of Afghan Islamic Jihad against Russian infidels. Afghan and some old Russian States populations are still reeling from effects of extremist Jihadi books printed by Univ of Nebraska and shipped to Russian territoroes paid for by US tax payers.
Trump has even claimed that Obama was founding father of ISIS Islamic State Jihad in Syria that was supported by our closest allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Fallacious argument.






Relational



Terrorism's Christian Godfather

Vaetan / AP
George Habash March 11, 1979

Checking in for a flight has never been the same since 1967

9/11 was to punish U.S. for Israel policy: Philip Zelikow 9/11 Commission Exec. Dir.

 

[ClaytonB]

It would be so convenient if our problems were the fault of some evil enemy plotting without and within to use extreme violence and terror to destroy us. Unfortunately, this simply isn't the case. America's problems are the result of Americans' way of life - our beliefs, attitudes and behavior.

Aggression - including violent aggression - is always wrong and destructive. Unfortunately, American foreign policy is hugely aggressive. To justify ourselves, we focus on the aggression of non-Americans - Muslims, Somalis, Chinese, Koreans, and so on - in order to turn the focus off ourselves.

We need to pull the plank out of our own eye before lecturing the rest of the world about the specks of dust in their eyes. Bring American troops back home, shut down the 700+ overseas US military bases and stop squandering trillions of dollars on military adventurism to expand the US empire. That's the obviously correct solution. But since that solution doesn't fit with the war-mongering agenda of the power-worshiping neocons, we're going to talk about Muslim violence instead.

 

[kahless]

In the process we may have to sanction ourselves also. Can you think of any bigger supporter of Jiahd in recent decades than US based neocons?
Reagan was founding father of Afghan Islamic Jihad against Russian infidels. Afgahns and people are still reeling for extremist Jihadi books printed by Univ of Nebraska and shipped to Russian territoroes paid for by US tax payers.
Trump has even claimed that Obama was founding father of ISIS Islamic State Jihad in Syria that was supported by our closest allies Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Fallacious argument.

[MENTION=35009]ClaytonB[/MENTION]

For those that use that as an excuse, that ship has already sailed and there is no turning back the clock. I really do not feel like martyring my people with the risk of Muslim immigration due to government actions that were outside of my control in the first place.

Even if the US never ventured outside our own borders the problem would still exist since according to this piece the problem is inherently with the Islamic belief system.

 

[acptulsa]

Oh, the OP isn't announcing with a straight face that religious discrimination and persecution is a 'libertarian value' because that drives sane people away from our philosophy and gives cover to the Washington swamp rats who profit from imperialism and war. Perish the thought.

He's saying it because he believes every Muslim in the world is a bloodthirsty savage. And the only reason all one and a half billion of them haven't gotten around to exterminating the measly three hundred million of us yet is that they haven't gotten around to it yet. Probably waiting for a student visa or a plane ticket, or an Uber so they can get to us. Something like that.

Don't believe me? Ask him!

Oh, and if you were looking at the banner at the top of the page and wondering if either Dr. Paul approves his message, the only response I can make is, Bwahahahahahaha!

 

[Champ]

I've seen a lot of prominent libertarians and anarchists on both sides, yelling and screaming over this issue like crazy. Some have even lost their standing in libertarian circles because of this issue. Everyone is sure they have the answer and it's a case closed issue, but it seems like the debate is really just starting. This topic will be sure to continue to divide the libertarian movement, and those that don't agree with someone's opinion will be called fake libertarians or not libertarian enough. It's sad, but at the same time, I think discussion regarding any issue should always be on the table.

 

[Raginfridus]

Why the rush to ban Muslims and not Jews? Is it because you prefer formalized, State-sanctioned terrorism over the luck-o-the-draw kind?

 

[ClaytonB]

For those that use that as an excuse, that ship has already sailed and there is no turning back the clock. I really do not feel like martyring my people with the risk of Muslim immigration due to government actions that were outside of my control in the first place.

Even if the US never ventured outside our own borders the problem would still exist since according to this piece the problem is inherently with the Islamic belief system.

Perhaps that is true. All the same, we should do things the right way. First, bring our troops home. Not only will that reduce the amount of blowback in the form of new terrorists and extremists recruited as a result of US actions (even well-justified actions!), it will also bolster the amount of at-home security that is available to address problems with our borders and other security problems arising from terrorism and other "21st-century threats".

Serial killers invariably have messed-up belief systems that motivate and justify their violence. Free societies accept that there will be people with messed-up beliefs ... but it's the actions that count. We cannot stop all violence without some kind of AI-all-seeing-eye, as in Minority Report - even then, it will not be 100% stopped. So, unless we're prepared to become tagged and monitored like cattle, we have to accept that there is always some risk of danger in life. Personally, I'd rather be free and accept the immensely tiny risk that I could be killed in a terrorist incident, than to be poked, prodded and monitored by an omnipotent, busy-body State in exchange for a false sense of safety.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps that is true. All the same, we should do things the right way. First, bring our troops home. Not only will that reduce the amount of blowback in the form of new terrorists and extremists recruited as a result of US actions (even well-justified actions!), it will also bolster the amount of at-home security that is available to address problems with our borders and other security problems arising from terrorism and other "21st-century threats".

Serial killers invariably have messed-up belief systems that motivate and justify their violence. Free societies accept that there will be people with messed-up beliefs ... but it's the actions that count. We cannot stop all violence without some kind of AI-all-seeing-eye, as in Minority Report - even then, it will not be 100% stopped. So, unless we're prepared to become tagged and monitored like cattle, we have to accept that there is always some risk of danger in life. Personally, I'd rather be free and accept the immensely tiny risk that I could be killed in a terrorist incident, than to be poked, prodded and monitored by an omnipotent, busy-body State in exchange for a false sense of safety.

Exactly.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

[MENTION=3352]kahless[/MENTION]


If you argue that yesterday US gov/US based neocons supporting and arming Islamic Jiahdi ISIS militants in Syria and today US gov opening borders to resulting Syrian war refugees increases risks for US and argue for admission controls, that argument can be logically defended. But the way the title is framed, sounds collectivist.

If issues with Jewish or Catholic or Mexican Christians or Biblical Christian belief systems were introduced to you that are extremely violent themed or encourage what in modern America is very anti modern "liberties", will you next call for "Jewish ban" or "Catholic ban" or "Mexican Christians ban" or "Biblical Christina ban" ?

More importantly, do you think the above author would support importing Christians of Arab/Palestinian races to US or Israel over muslims? If answer is yes, I would concede the argument completely.



Related

Ilana Mercer on libertarians who supposedly 'loathe' Israel

 

[kahless]

Oh, the OP isn't announcing with a straight face that religious discrimination and persecution is a 'libertarian value' because that drives sane people away from our philosophy and gives cover to the Washington swamp rats who profit from imperialism and war. Perish the thought.

He's saying it because he believes every Muslim in the world is a bloodthirsty savage. And the only reason all one and a half billion of them haven't gotten around to exterminating the measly three hundred million of us yet is that they haven't gotten around to it yet. Probably waiting for a student visa or a plane ticket, or an Uber so they can get to us. Something like that.

Don't believe me? Ask him!

Oh, and if you were looking at the banner at the top of the page and wondering if either Dr. Paul approves his message, the only response I can make is, Bwahahahahahaha!

I did not write the article, but would like to hear the opinions of the open borders libertarians here and if we can do so without the personal attacks that would be great. What this writer has posted has come up time and time again in this forum but we never hear you or anyone back their opposition to it with facts. Instead you go right into personal attack mode as demonstrated in this thread with your reply, without really making a logically argument to counter what this author has posted.

I take people as individuals so there is no hate in my heart for anyone. If you are Muslim you are more than welcome to post and that includes you acptulsa.

 

[Ender]

Oh, the OP isn't announcing with a straight face that religious discrimination and persecution is a 'libertarian value' because that drives sane people away from our philosophy and gives cover to the Washington swamp rats who profit from imperialism and war. Perish the thought.

He's saying it because he believes every Muslim in the world is a bloodthirsty savage. And the only reason all one and a half billion of them haven't gotten around to exterminating the measly three hundred million of us yet is that they haven't gotten around to it yet. Probably waiting for a student visa or a plane ticket, or an Uber so they can get to us. Something like that.

Don't believe me? Ask him!

Oh, and if you were looking at the banner at the top of the page and wondering if either Dr. Paul approves his message, the only response I can make is, Bwahahahahahaha!

I'd rep you again, if I could.

 

[acptulsa]

I did not write the article, but would like to hear the opinions of the open borders libertarians here and if we can do so without the personal attacks that would be great. What this writer has posted has come up time and time again in this forum but we never hear you or anyone back their opposition to it with facts. Instead you go right into personal attack mode as demonstrated in this thread with your reply, without really making a logically argument to counter what this author has posted.

I take people as individuals so there is no hate in my heart for anyone. If you are Muslim you are more than welcome to post and that includes you acptulsa.

So, I am now not only for open borders, but Muslim?

'I don't want there to be personal attacks, so I'm not only going to assign belief systems to people without a shred of evidence, but religions too. Not only without a shred of evidence, but in spite if the existence of evidence to the contrary! That'll keep things civil!' Yeah, buddy!

Links or you're lying. Again. Like you did when you promised to put me on 'ignore'.

You didn't write the article, but you started a thread about it. You say you want discourse but didn't address a single point I made. You accuse others of personal attacks but blatantly infer that people are what plenty of evidence suggests they are not.

Are you from the Ministry of Truth?

 

[CaptUSA]

So, I am now not only for open borders, but Muslim?

'I don't want there to be personal attacks, so I'm not only going to assign belief systems to people without a shred of evidence, but religions too. Not only without a shred of evidence, but in spite if the existence of evidence to the contrary! That'll keep things civil!' Yeah, buddy!

Links or you're lying. Again. Like you did when you promised to put me on 'ignore'.

Insane. The OP is trying to use libertarianism as a justification for moar state power. These guys have absolutely zero understanding of what liberty is. They just want the state to use its power for their benefit at the expense of others. Pretty much like every lefty in the world.

 

[kahless]

[MENTION=3352]kahless[/MENTION]

If you argue that yesterday US gov/US based neocons supporting and arming Islamic Jiahdi ISIS militants in Syria and today US gov opening borders to resulting Syrian war refugees increases risks for US and argue for admission controls, that argument can be logically defended. But the way the title is framed, sounds collectivist.

If issues with Jewish or Catholic or Mexican Christians or Biblical Christian belief systems were introduced to you that are extremely violent themed or encourage what in modern America is very anti modern "liberties", will you next call for "Jewish ban" or "Catholic ban" or "Mexican Christians ban" or "Biblical Christina ban" ?

More importantly, do you think the above author would support importing Christians of Arab/Palestinian races to US or Israel over muslims? If answer is yes, I would concede the argument completely.

Related

Ilana Mercer on libertarians who supposedly 'loathe' Israel

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.

How do you think the people and the mainstream media in the US would react if there was such a Christian society in the Middle East that had executed and killed civilians in the west with this ideology?

I have a feeling these same open border activists in this forum would be not so quick to give cover as they currently are doing.

 

[otherone]

Insane. The OP is trying to use libertarianism as a justification for moar state power. These guys have absolutely zero understanding of what liberty is. They just want the state to use its power for their benefit at the expense of others. Pretty much like every lefty in the world.

THIS.
There was nothing "libertarian" about the op. the term has been co-opted. It's not government's job to assuage fear. This article could easily be welcomed at DU substituting "guns" or "global warming" for "muslim". These types of people are not libertarians. They're paleo-pussies.

 

[kahless]

Insane. The OP is trying to use libertarianism as a justification for moar state power. These guys have absolutely zero understanding of what liberty is. They just want the state to use its power for their benefit at the expense of others. Pretty much like every lefty in the world.

THIS.
There was nothing "libertarian" about the op. the term has been co-opted. It's not government's job to assuage fear. This article could easily be welcomed at DU substituting "guns" or "global warming" for "muslim". These types of people are not libertarians. They're paleo-pussies.

I did not write the article. If you disagree with the author could you address specifically your opposition to what she wrote?

Are you saying you want all immigration controls removed? What is your position in how to handle what she addressed? thx

 

[otherone]

I did not write the article. If you disagree with the author could you address specifically your opposition to what she wrote?

Are you saying you want all immigration controls removed? What is your position in how to handle what she addressed? thx

she didn't say immigration was the problem. you did.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

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.

How do you think the people and the mainstream media in the US would react if there was such a Christian society in the Middle East that had executed and killed civilians in the west with this ideology?

I think they would honor them by dedicating US space shuttles to their great Islamic Jihadi endeavours and may even compare them to Founding Fathers of America. Big problems happen when we lose track of our management of "infidels" that the violent Islamic Jihad should be directed towards.

I have a feeling these same open border activists in this forum would be not so quite to give cover as they currently are doing.

If you are framing the question as if the only two choices are "open borders" or "muslim ban"... that can be useful for short term political slogan perhaps but would fail in any indepth debate. If you or Illana have in the past argued for ending all our foreign militant interventions and stopping military/financial support that enables Israeli occupation of Palestinian Muslims/Christians/Athiests/Agnostics etc, I could support any ban for the heck of it.

Curiuos, do you now support such mind-our-own-business foreign policy or have called for such steps in the past?

Israeli champions like Illana have for decades pushed such illogical US tax payers funded policies that are pushing US towards being a fear centric/security centric militarized Police State like Israel. That I think is the bigger issue, the topic of this thread is only about policing control for dealing with one of the many side effects of such anti-libertarian history.

 

[kahless]

she didn't say immigration was the problem. you did.

Read the article, she is talking about banning Muslims from entry. Obviously a ban on Muslim immigration.

Since humanity has no inherent, natural right to venture wherever, whenever—stopping Muslim mass migration into the U.S. not only makes good sense, but doesn’t violate humanity’s natural rights.