ProIndividual
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,775
Stefan Molyneux has done a lot of good for children, and the liberty movement as a consequence. I want to be clear: I am not a Stef-hater (some people just have a hate-on for the guy). Now that the disclaimer is out the way...
WTF is with this Hoppe-esque bullshit in libertarianism that says the state has the "right" to victimize non-victimizers, like immigrants when telling them they can't enter the USA? That isn't logically congruent with the overall goals of anarchism...i.e., trying to achieve a non-coercive world (or the one least coercive, insofar as that is possible), and not sanctioning the coercion of non-victimizers. Hoppe and his fellow travelers are NOT in the libertarian tradition on this issue. Now, tradition isn't a logical argument...but not all traditions have no logical basis. The idea of open immigration (background checks and medical exams if a nightwatchmen state or greater is still around, but no arbitrary quotas on levels of immigration over certain time periods - in other words, the market controls immigration, not the state) is the result of the logical conclusions of the ethical theories libertarians developed and adopted (despite what some say, the NAP is not the only ethical theory that leads one to anarchism or libertarianism, so it isn't a catch-all litmus test).
Hoppe pretty much argues that if we lived in a totally free society (AnCapism in his view) then all or almost all property would be private (which only includes for-profits and non-profits, but not co-ops, as far as I have read - but to be fair, I haven't read Hoppe entirely and could be misrepresenting him here, unintentionally). So, he reasons that landowners would, in that private property society, not let people on their property that reduced the value of their land or enterprise (so litterers would be ostracized if they stopped paying "fines" - not from the state - for littering on private roads, for example). Since the landowners can voluntarily disassociate, that ostracism controls immigration via market means, and anarchists (according to Hoppe) should seek to mirror that hypothetical free society as much as possible.
I will now take on Hoppe's and Molyneux's arguments, as best as I understand them from my incomplete reading of them both:
1. There will never be a totally private property society in the sense of not having co-ops along with non-profits and for-profits. Uniformity requires coercion in crowds of more than 1 (many times, at least). So, the idea we should mirror a hypothetical that will never occur and still be a free society is not sound. There will always be thoroughfaires and easements, and there will be, even in the AnCap vision of a contractual society (which I totally share with them, despite me not being a Rothbardian per se), common property formed via said contracts. Ostrom's work in economics is informative here to ways in which commons can be contractually owned, controlled, and managed and yet avoid the tragedy of the (state) commons. I'm no fan of democracy myself, so I always replace her ideas about localized and direct democracy via the commons contract with the idea of just hiring a manager on the market so we can avoid democracy and instead fire the bad manager if we don't like the job they are doing. Saves the inevitable problems individualists like myself see in democracy (and see them as inevitable). But that nuance aside, I endorse Ostrom's ideas on contractual commons, and without explicitly endorsing Ostrom or her work themselves, AnCaps do too. They want a contractual society...and that means some people can take their own private property and contract with each other to turn it into a commons. This will be done and is done already to a small extent...that's how Home Owners Associations (HOAs) own, control, and manage their own roads within the HOA's development area. It would not be difficult to add a clause in the contract that says you can sell any time you like, and the HOA must match an honest highest bidder (and then transfer it to the highest bidder if they accept the bid), but that land property and home MUST be sold to the HOA directly and not a buyer, and HOA then can choose (as the commons they are) who they will allow into their community via the final sale and transfer to a buyer. That way you can still move and sell when you want to, via market demand, but the HOA can still remain a commons...the HOA is the ultimate owner of all the property, via the contract, and only the HOA can sell lots. This way no one can break up the commons (it could be broke up, if demand for lots plummets while those wanting to sell become numerous).
I'm not personally a fan of HOAs, as I like a couch on my porch in the summer and a trampoline in my front yard, and pink and purple polka dots paint on my house (just the front...lol). HOAs tend to frown on that shit. But I can see how they can be used to facilitate commons without tragedy of the commons rearing its head. Like I said, they already do this with their roads.
Anyways, the point is, the hypothetical assumption of a fully private property society (which i didn't take Hoppe to mean co-ops/contractual commons, but I'm not sure totally) is not a realistic one, so we can't use that hypothetical as the basis for what can be ethically justified and what cannot.
2. In a totally private property society, it takes one guy to rent someone a room or sell them a home, or whatever, to get an "immigrant" into the "country". Think about it...property owners being compared to a nation-state, in terms of border policy, is altogether off. They aren't in a position to stop immigration. To do so, private property owners would all have to agree at the "border" regions of this anarchy we're envisioning. If just one guy on the border, homeowner or road owner, decides to let in a person most other people don't want here, then they are in. But there is no "country" in a free society, so there is no collective concept with clear geographic aspects to discern. Our "borders" won't exist...we'll have de facto borders only where we have states as our neighbors (and when all states are gone, borders disappear with them). The non-state area is just a free territory, and the laws depend on how people contract in the market for law and defense in a polycentric manner. This means no majority can just out vote the individual owner of the land in question, and they can (as long as their contract with a surety allows it anyways), if they wish, let in whoever they like. To restrain him from doing so legitimately, you'd have to show some probable cause that the person he let on his property was/is an imminent endangerment to others just by being there. If you can't prove that, then fuck off...you have no ethical reason to coerce the persons involved (landowner or guest "immigrant").
3. Molyneux uses good metaphors and analogies...usually. Here he screws the pooch, in my opinion. He says letting in Muslims is like having a bowl of M&Ms where 25% are poisonous. He then prods the listener to decide, would you keep eating them? If you were sick from them, would you keep eating them? (I'm paraphrasing to save time...quoting would be fairer, but I don't care that much about it unless Stef decides he wants to debate the issue or something, which I am not trying to goad him into doing, or I'd post this on his forums and call his show.) He uses 25% based on poll where 25% of Muslims in the USA think Muslims should have the right to practice Sharia Law if the wish. Notice the poll didn't say that it should be IMPOSED on non-Muslims. That's key here to this point.
The problem with the metaphor is two-fold. I'll address the idea of Sharia for Muslims in the next numbered point, but for now I'll attack the idea of the M&M bowl that is 25% poison.
The problem with the M&M comparison is that terrorism is such a tiny threat. Stef seems to be caught up in the hype of this media-driven sensationalism about the threat of terrorism. He has made several videos related to this lately, either because he is more afraid of terrorism than is rational, or because he's being a sensationalist propagandist himself. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt, so I'll assume he needs to hear the following:
Rational fear is ONLY fear proportional to risk, relative to other risks you face normally day-to-day. Any fear above that is irrational.
I know Stef comes from a tradition I do not (he was an Objectivist in the past)...but I know enough of Rand to know how highly Objectivists value reason. I think Stef must not have thought about how low a risk terrorism really is, and instead of grasping this and insisting on the Truth (that it isn't very scary if we're rational about it, and that means we should be lecturing the masses on their cowardice and how it gives the terrorists the power they were seeking when committing the acts), he is sounding more and more like Hoppe (or worse, Trump). This mistake, as I see it, means we are moving toward less freedom out of fear...which moves us away from liberty we wish to achieve and toward the ideal anti-society the terrorists apparently want. Obviously I don't think Stef or anyone is obligated to convince the masses they are cowardly fucks, but to join the cowards in their irrational fear is not the right move here. The right move is approaching the risk rationally, assessing how much fear it deserves (despite instincts that can often lead us astray).
Terrorism is less likely to kill you (on average, as an American anywhere in the world)) by a factor of 8 (and up to 50 in some studies I've seen) than cops. Your bathtub is about as likely to kill you as a terrorist. How afraid of your bathtub are you? How afraid of the police?
If you fear terrorism more than cops and the bathtub, you're being irrational on two levels. Due to the actual probability of risk, the bathtub and terrorism require about the same amount of fear...if we're being rational about it.
Now the counter point to this is often emotional. People decry the getting your head cut off versus a slip and fall in the tub. They claim one is scarier and more painful, and not an accident. They pretend laws can be enforced magically in immigration without East German tactics. They act as if it is that easy to keep people out who want in (worse, they act like there aren't cheaper, easier, and faster ways to get in than waiting two years through the refugee screening process). Two quick points:
Point A: You can't beat the market on immigration...it will always win. The idea you can keep all Muslims out is a joke. The idea you can even approach doing it without authoritarian tactics built on initiation of violence against innocents is an even bigger joke.
Point B: Your fear of a horrible death is not a rational criteria for elevated fear. All that matters is probability of mortality or great bodily harm, not HOW it happens. This flaw in logic is why people drive to Vegas instead of flying...they are more afraid of the horrible HOW they might die in a plane, so they take a much higher risk of death by driving there instead. This exposure to more risk is real, and isn't immaterial. When a large enough sample size of people do this illogical shit, some of them die at a higher rate than the large sample size of fliers.
People who think you can keep Muslim immigrants out (especially without authoritarian, unjustified tactics) are like people who drive to Vegas. Their fear is misplaced and disproportionate to risk relative to other risks. Their expectations are unrealistic. They mistake the fear of HOW they might die for the more important PROBABILITY of it actually happening. ONLY when probabilities relative to risk, and relative to other risks, are considered is your fear rational.
So, returning to the M&M dish comparison...it's not like an M&M dish that is 25% poison at all. It's like an M&M dish where the chance of mild food poisoning is so low its laughable...like in real life, right now, if you go eat a bowl of M&Ms. The fact Muslims hold an opinion that some (or almost all) don't like (the 25% is what Stef didn't like...I'll address this in a moment) - but that is a freedom of thought issue, not one of risk of terrorism. To conflate an opinion on Sharia with someone who would commit terrorism is...well, tenuous at best. People have fucked up opinions sometimes, but they rarely act on them. You know how many times I heard people who haven't been in a fight in a decade say "if he did that to me I'd whoop his ass"? People say and believe all kinds of shit...but polls are not reflective AT ALL of market preferences or actual actions people will take. Take a poll on "who wants more free shit from the state?" Many will say they want more free shit. Then tell them only those who vote for more free shit are going have taxes raised to pay for it. All of a sudden, when faced with not using outsourced state force to subsidize that which they want (they can't extort - tax - their neighbors to pay for it), many less of those former free-stuffers will still want the policy they formerly supported. This is the difference between polls and votes versus market decisions as consumers and producers. The same applies to opinion polls...they cannot control for sociological factors, like the attitude of the questioned individuals and what goes into that dynamic mood, when polling people. We can't determine the level to which people would be angered instantly by the question and give more aggressive answers, etc. That said, we can assume the polls were unemotional and accurate...it still won't line up with actions when we look at crime stats.
The fact is, we've had Muslim refugees here for a very long time, and even since 9/11, and yet none of them has ever been accused, let alone found guilty, of any terrorist act. The Muslim immigrants don't appear to have a very different murder rate than the average American either. Remember, terrorism is just a form of various other crimes, like murder, torture, kidnapping, rape, assault, etc. So, we shouldn't make the mistake the anti-gun crowd does; they always look at GUN MURDERS (actually they include all homicides, like suicides usually, but you get my point here) not TOTAL MURDER RATE. The issue with that is that only murder RATE (per capita) matters, not the total number of murders. And NEVER is the number of gun murders important; gun murders can go up or down while the total murder rate does the exact opposite. Are you any safer if gun murders, or even gun murder rate, decreases, but total murder rates increased? Of course not...so only the total murder rate is relevant to which makes you safer. This is almost the same mistake being made with refugees and immigrants; people want to focus on opinion polls and fear of terrorism, they don't want to focus on the total murder, assault, etc, rates for Muslim Americans, or just Muslim refugees (depending on what we're discussing), and instead want to focus on things that do not quantify in any meaningful way the risk Muslim immigrants or refugees pose. If we only look at the relevant criteria, i.e. the total murder rate for these groups, we are INCLUDING terrorism in there with other threats...and that is the best gauge of the actual statistical threat.
Now, there is an argument that all this parsing of stats is hindsight bias, and isn't predictive per se. I can understand this argument and agree to a point (in Nassim Taleb's "Black Swan" kind of way)...but until a better predictor is found, we work with what we have. Logic is about proving affirmative claims (like "Muslims coming here is too risky") , not proving negatives (which is about impossible). I don't have to prove any group of people is NOT a threat...all humans pose a potential threat (more on this in a moment as well). You, if you oppose their entry, have to prove they ARE individually a threat too high relative to other risks. If you can't...well go sit down and have a hot cup of shut the fuck up.
Muslim refugees/immigrants (the former better screened and safer than the latter) are indeed like a normal bowl of M&Ms, not a 25% poison bowl of them,
4. In a free society we have polycentric law (a lack of coercive monopoly over insurance against and protection from crime, nonviolent dispute resolution services, and restitution reclamation services). If we don't allow this competition we're not a free society...we're just a state by another name (no matter how localized or decentralized it may be). But assuming a free society hypothetical to guide us here, law would be polycentric. Thereby, wouldn't Muslims be free to contract with one another to chop each others hands off over theft and whatnot? Of course the answer is yes. No one could stop them from having Sharia law via contractual legal frameworks. So why the fuck does it bother Stef so much they think Muslims should have the ability to live under Sharia law if they want to? I get the problem of it in the context of the state, and would oppose it...but I oppose all coercive monopolies on law, even the one we have right now in real life (the state). Should a consistent philosopher support their "right" to live under Sharia in polycentrism? Or should he ignore this "what happens if we're free" standard and only think pragmatically in the here and now? Perhaps it is a mix of both, but liberty should hold precedence over safety, and their "right" to a contractual arrangement of a voluntary nature, no matter how stupid or backward we all think it is, should be advocated for. Our offense at it is subjective when it isn't enforced on everyone.
So, I think it is the consistent position for anarchists to support Muslims being able to live under Sharia law, but ONLY in the context of a stateless society where all law is contractual ONLY. I want to live under my own laws, why can't they?
5. Arguments against immigrants or refugees are anti-human arguments, even if the people espousing them don't realize it. See, saying "Muslims pose a non-zero risk of murder of natives" is applicable to your kids too. I could just as easily say "you shouldn't be able to have kids, because they have a non-zero chance of murdering natives". You can do the same for the "they suck up our tax dollars" argument. If it is unjust to let people emigrate here because they pose a tiny threat to us (that of a bathtub, in terms of terrorism alone) or suck off us, then ANY new people pose this same problem (and unless one group has a vastly higher rate of these things than the other, there's no reason to treat them differently). I am not less extorted, or less angry about it, when I have to pay for newly born Americans versus immigrants who just arrived. I am not more imperiled by new people via immigration than new people via natural birthrates. Now, if you can show a non-insignificant (yes, I'm aware that it a double negative, and that I keep ending sentences with prepositions...lol) elevated threat level for murder by way of one group versus the other, then we might have something to discuss...but even then...(which brings me to my next point)..
6. Stef rails against collective guilt when it is aimed at him and others by feminists, environmentalists, etc....
...but isn't claiming an entire collective group, of which a tiny minority poses a tiny threat (mindful all humans pose some kind of statistical threat), should be treated collectively just a form of collective guilt? I don't want to call Stef a hypocrite here, but it isn't far off. You can't say feminists and environmentalists shouldn't treat all men and humans (respectively) as guilty just for being men or existing (respectively), and then claim all Muslims should be treated as guilty as a precautionary measure because of what a few individuals (relatively) among them do.
7. Stef says we owe these refugees nothing. I won't reprint the entire text, but I'll link below my post on this subject of refugees, in which I say (among other things):
"ISIS would not exist if we didn't invade Iraq without good evidence they were any threat to "us" or "our" "allies". There isn't a shred of evidence of an operational presence for Al Qaeda (AQ) in Iraq, pre-invasion. Iraq never had a suicide bombing in its history until the invasion. ISIS started out as AQ in Iraq (AQI), but took on a more brutal and territorial ideology and have since been denounced by the main AQ group, and in Syria are fighting against Al-Nursa (AN), a still-endorsed AQ faction. Those AN guys are some of the "moderate Syrian rebels/freedom fighters/Free Syrian Army" the U.S. wants to fund and arm. Yeah, you read that right...fund AQ to fight former AQ (it's like one set of a gang that's gone renegade fighting the original set). Plus Syria has the Assad regime (who "we" are against), and other factions (including anarchists in Turkey's autonomous region of Kurds). ISIS itself is only part religious whackos; the other part is a Baathist army, leftovers from Sadaam's deposed army. So, not only in the "AQ-gives-way-to-ISIS-historically" sense do they owe their existence to "our" invasion, but also on the "half-their-forces-are-guys-from-the-dude-we-overthrew's-former-army" sense. So, don't tell me "we" have no responsibility to these refugees..."we" completely destabilized their countries with an unjustified war of total initiated aggression based on what we now know were conscious lies. We burnt down their house, and now you think we don't owe them a place to crash, especially given it turns out they were no threat to us and some dude lied to us about them being a threat, which prompted us to burn down their house? Seriously?"
That concludes my criticisms of Stef and his terrorism/immigration stances. This applies to many other people too, so I singled Stef out because people know who he is (and his videos on the subject just seem wrong in a few ways to me), but we all know people taking these positions. Again, I'm not a Stef-hater. I suggest people who read this go watch Stefan Molyneux's videos on YouTube (acccounts = "stefbot" and "freedomainradio"), and then decide for themselves who is right, if either of us. Donate to him if you feel his videos are of value to you. Thanks for your valuable time, and take care.
Link to the whole post I quoted in point #7:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1681151522156688&id=100007855696114
WTF is with this Hoppe-esque bullshit in libertarianism that says the state has the "right" to victimize non-victimizers, like immigrants when telling them they can't enter the USA? That isn't logically congruent with the overall goals of anarchism...i.e., trying to achieve a non-coercive world (or the one least coercive, insofar as that is possible), and not sanctioning the coercion of non-victimizers. Hoppe and his fellow travelers are NOT in the libertarian tradition on this issue. Now, tradition isn't a logical argument...but not all traditions have no logical basis. The idea of open immigration (background checks and medical exams if a nightwatchmen state or greater is still around, but no arbitrary quotas on levels of immigration over certain time periods - in other words, the market controls immigration, not the state) is the result of the logical conclusions of the ethical theories libertarians developed and adopted (despite what some say, the NAP is not the only ethical theory that leads one to anarchism or libertarianism, so it isn't a catch-all litmus test).
Hoppe pretty much argues that if we lived in a totally free society (AnCapism in his view) then all or almost all property would be private (which only includes for-profits and non-profits, but not co-ops, as far as I have read - but to be fair, I haven't read Hoppe entirely and could be misrepresenting him here, unintentionally). So, he reasons that landowners would, in that private property society, not let people on their property that reduced the value of their land or enterprise (so litterers would be ostracized if they stopped paying "fines" - not from the state - for littering on private roads, for example). Since the landowners can voluntarily disassociate, that ostracism controls immigration via market means, and anarchists (according to Hoppe) should seek to mirror that hypothetical free society as much as possible.
I will now take on Hoppe's and Molyneux's arguments, as best as I understand them from my incomplete reading of them both:
1. There will never be a totally private property society in the sense of not having co-ops along with non-profits and for-profits. Uniformity requires coercion in crowds of more than 1 (many times, at least). So, the idea we should mirror a hypothetical that will never occur and still be a free society is not sound. There will always be thoroughfaires and easements, and there will be, even in the AnCap vision of a contractual society (which I totally share with them, despite me not being a Rothbardian per se), common property formed via said contracts. Ostrom's work in economics is informative here to ways in which commons can be contractually owned, controlled, and managed and yet avoid the tragedy of the (state) commons. I'm no fan of democracy myself, so I always replace her ideas about localized and direct democracy via the commons contract with the idea of just hiring a manager on the market so we can avoid democracy and instead fire the bad manager if we don't like the job they are doing. Saves the inevitable problems individualists like myself see in democracy (and see them as inevitable). But that nuance aside, I endorse Ostrom's ideas on contractual commons, and without explicitly endorsing Ostrom or her work themselves, AnCaps do too. They want a contractual society...and that means some people can take their own private property and contract with each other to turn it into a commons. This will be done and is done already to a small extent...that's how Home Owners Associations (HOAs) own, control, and manage their own roads within the HOA's development area. It would not be difficult to add a clause in the contract that says you can sell any time you like, and the HOA must match an honest highest bidder (and then transfer it to the highest bidder if they accept the bid), but that land property and home MUST be sold to the HOA directly and not a buyer, and HOA then can choose (as the commons they are) who they will allow into their community via the final sale and transfer to a buyer. That way you can still move and sell when you want to, via market demand, but the HOA can still remain a commons...the HOA is the ultimate owner of all the property, via the contract, and only the HOA can sell lots. This way no one can break up the commons (it could be broke up, if demand for lots plummets while those wanting to sell become numerous).
I'm not personally a fan of HOAs, as I like a couch on my porch in the summer and a trampoline in my front yard, and pink and purple polka dots paint on my house (just the front...lol). HOAs tend to frown on that shit. But I can see how they can be used to facilitate commons without tragedy of the commons rearing its head. Like I said, they already do this with their roads.
Anyways, the point is, the hypothetical assumption of a fully private property society (which i didn't take Hoppe to mean co-ops/contractual commons, but I'm not sure totally) is not a realistic one, so we can't use that hypothetical as the basis for what can be ethically justified and what cannot.
2. In a totally private property society, it takes one guy to rent someone a room or sell them a home, or whatever, to get an "immigrant" into the "country". Think about it...property owners being compared to a nation-state, in terms of border policy, is altogether off. They aren't in a position to stop immigration. To do so, private property owners would all have to agree at the "border" regions of this anarchy we're envisioning. If just one guy on the border, homeowner or road owner, decides to let in a person most other people don't want here, then they are in. But there is no "country" in a free society, so there is no collective concept with clear geographic aspects to discern. Our "borders" won't exist...we'll have de facto borders only where we have states as our neighbors (and when all states are gone, borders disappear with them). The non-state area is just a free territory, and the laws depend on how people contract in the market for law and defense in a polycentric manner. This means no majority can just out vote the individual owner of the land in question, and they can (as long as their contract with a surety allows it anyways), if they wish, let in whoever they like. To restrain him from doing so legitimately, you'd have to show some probable cause that the person he let on his property was/is an imminent endangerment to others just by being there. If you can't prove that, then fuck off...you have no ethical reason to coerce the persons involved (landowner or guest "immigrant").
3. Molyneux uses good metaphors and analogies...usually. Here he screws the pooch, in my opinion. He says letting in Muslims is like having a bowl of M&Ms where 25% are poisonous. He then prods the listener to decide, would you keep eating them? If you were sick from them, would you keep eating them? (I'm paraphrasing to save time...quoting would be fairer, but I don't care that much about it unless Stef decides he wants to debate the issue or something, which I am not trying to goad him into doing, or I'd post this on his forums and call his show.) He uses 25% based on poll where 25% of Muslims in the USA think Muslims should have the right to practice Sharia Law if the wish. Notice the poll didn't say that it should be IMPOSED on non-Muslims. That's key here to this point.
The problem with the metaphor is two-fold. I'll address the idea of Sharia for Muslims in the next numbered point, but for now I'll attack the idea of the M&M bowl that is 25% poison.
The problem with the M&M comparison is that terrorism is such a tiny threat. Stef seems to be caught up in the hype of this media-driven sensationalism about the threat of terrorism. He has made several videos related to this lately, either because he is more afraid of terrorism than is rational, or because he's being a sensationalist propagandist himself. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt, so I'll assume he needs to hear the following:
Rational fear is ONLY fear proportional to risk, relative to other risks you face normally day-to-day. Any fear above that is irrational.
I know Stef comes from a tradition I do not (he was an Objectivist in the past)...but I know enough of Rand to know how highly Objectivists value reason. I think Stef must not have thought about how low a risk terrorism really is, and instead of grasping this and insisting on the Truth (that it isn't very scary if we're rational about it, and that means we should be lecturing the masses on their cowardice and how it gives the terrorists the power they were seeking when committing the acts), he is sounding more and more like Hoppe (or worse, Trump). This mistake, as I see it, means we are moving toward less freedom out of fear...which moves us away from liberty we wish to achieve and toward the ideal anti-society the terrorists apparently want. Obviously I don't think Stef or anyone is obligated to convince the masses they are cowardly fucks, but to join the cowards in their irrational fear is not the right move here. The right move is approaching the risk rationally, assessing how much fear it deserves (despite instincts that can often lead us astray).
Terrorism is less likely to kill you (on average, as an American anywhere in the world)) by a factor of 8 (and up to 50 in some studies I've seen) than cops. Your bathtub is about as likely to kill you as a terrorist. How afraid of your bathtub are you? How afraid of the police?
If you fear terrorism more than cops and the bathtub, you're being irrational on two levels. Due to the actual probability of risk, the bathtub and terrorism require about the same amount of fear...if we're being rational about it.
Now the counter point to this is often emotional. People decry the getting your head cut off versus a slip and fall in the tub. They claim one is scarier and more painful, and not an accident. They pretend laws can be enforced magically in immigration without East German tactics. They act as if it is that easy to keep people out who want in (worse, they act like there aren't cheaper, easier, and faster ways to get in than waiting two years through the refugee screening process). Two quick points:
Point A: You can't beat the market on immigration...it will always win. The idea you can keep all Muslims out is a joke. The idea you can even approach doing it without authoritarian tactics built on initiation of violence against innocents is an even bigger joke.
Point B: Your fear of a horrible death is not a rational criteria for elevated fear. All that matters is probability of mortality or great bodily harm, not HOW it happens. This flaw in logic is why people drive to Vegas instead of flying...they are more afraid of the horrible HOW they might die in a plane, so they take a much higher risk of death by driving there instead. This exposure to more risk is real, and isn't immaterial. When a large enough sample size of people do this illogical shit, some of them die at a higher rate than the large sample size of fliers.
People who think you can keep Muslim immigrants out (especially without authoritarian, unjustified tactics) are like people who drive to Vegas. Their fear is misplaced and disproportionate to risk relative to other risks. Their expectations are unrealistic. They mistake the fear of HOW they might die for the more important PROBABILITY of it actually happening. ONLY when probabilities relative to risk, and relative to other risks, are considered is your fear rational.
So, returning to the M&M dish comparison...it's not like an M&M dish that is 25% poison at all. It's like an M&M dish where the chance of mild food poisoning is so low its laughable...like in real life, right now, if you go eat a bowl of M&Ms. The fact Muslims hold an opinion that some (or almost all) don't like (the 25% is what Stef didn't like...I'll address this in a moment) - but that is a freedom of thought issue, not one of risk of terrorism. To conflate an opinion on Sharia with someone who would commit terrorism is...well, tenuous at best. People have fucked up opinions sometimes, but they rarely act on them. You know how many times I heard people who haven't been in a fight in a decade say "if he did that to me I'd whoop his ass"? People say and believe all kinds of shit...but polls are not reflective AT ALL of market preferences or actual actions people will take. Take a poll on "who wants more free shit from the state?" Many will say they want more free shit. Then tell them only those who vote for more free shit are going have taxes raised to pay for it. All of a sudden, when faced with not using outsourced state force to subsidize that which they want (they can't extort - tax - their neighbors to pay for it), many less of those former free-stuffers will still want the policy they formerly supported. This is the difference between polls and votes versus market decisions as consumers and producers. The same applies to opinion polls...they cannot control for sociological factors, like the attitude of the questioned individuals and what goes into that dynamic mood, when polling people. We can't determine the level to which people would be angered instantly by the question and give more aggressive answers, etc. That said, we can assume the polls were unemotional and accurate...it still won't line up with actions when we look at crime stats.
The fact is, we've had Muslim refugees here for a very long time, and even since 9/11, and yet none of them has ever been accused, let alone found guilty, of any terrorist act. The Muslim immigrants don't appear to have a very different murder rate than the average American either. Remember, terrorism is just a form of various other crimes, like murder, torture, kidnapping, rape, assault, etc. So, we shouldn't make the mistake the anti-gun crowd does; they always look at GUN MURDERS (actually they include all homicides, like suicides usually, but you get my point here) not TOTAL MURDER RATE. The issue with that is that only murder RATE (per capita) matters, not the total number of murders. And NEVER is the number of gun murders important; gun murders can go up or down while the total murder rate does the exact opposite. Are you any safer if gun murders, or even gun murder rate, decreases, but total murder rates increased? Of course not...so only the total murder rate is relevant to which makes you safer. This is almost the same mistake being made with refugees and immigrants; people want to focus on opinion polls and fear of terrorism, they don't want to focus on the total murder, assault, etc, rates for Muslim Americans, or just Muslim refugees (depending on what we're discussing), and instead want to focus on things that do not quantify in any meaningful way the risk Muslim immigrants or refugees pose. If we only look at the relevant criteria, i.e. the total murder rate for these groups, we are INCLUDING terrorism in there with other threats...and that is the best gauge of the actual statistical threat.
Now, there is an argument that all this parsing of stats is hindsight bias, and isn't predictive per se. I can understand this argument and agree to a point (in Nassim Taleb's "Black Swan" kind of way)...but until a better predictor is found, we work with what we have. Logic is about proving affirmative claims (like "Muslims coming here is too risky") , not proving negatives (which is about impossible). I don't have to prove any group of people is NOT a threat...all humans pose a potential threat (more on this in a moment as well). You, if you oppose their entry, have to prove they ARE individually a threat too high relative to other risks. If you can't...well go sit down and have a hot cup of shut the fuck up.
Muslim refugees/immigrants (the former better screened and safer than the latter) are indeed like a normal bowl of M&Ms, not a 25% poison bowl of them,
4. In a free society we have polycentric law (a lack of coercive monopoly over insurance against and protection from crime, nonviolent dispute resolution services, and restitution reclamation services). If we don't allow this competition we're not a free society...we're just a state by another name (no matter how localized or decentralized it may be). But assuming a free society hypothetical to guide us here, law would be polycentric. Thereby, wouldn't Muslims be free to contract with one another to chop each others hands off over theft and whatnot? Of course the answer is yes. No one could stop them from having Sharia law via contractual legal frameworks. So why the fuck does it bother Stef so much they think Muslims should have the ability to live under Sharia law if they want to? I get the problem of it in the context of the state, and would oppose it...but I oppose all coercive monopolies on law, even the one we have right now in real life (the state). Should a consistent philosopher support their "right" to live under Sharia in polycentrism? Or should he ignore this "what happens if we're free" standard and only think pragmatically in the here and now? Perhaps it is a mix of both, but liberty should hold precedence over safety, and their "right" to a contractual arrangement of a voluntary nature, no matter how stupid or backward we all think it is, should be advocated for. Our offense at it is subjective when it isn't enforced on everyone.
So, I think it is the consistent position for anarchists to support Muslims being able to live under Sharia law, but ONLY in the context of a stateless society where all law is contractual ONLY. I want to live under my own laws, why can't they?
5. Arguments against immigrants or refugees are anti-human arguments, even if the people espousing them don't realize it. See, saying "Muslims pose a non-zero risk of murder of natives" is applicable to your kids too. I could just as easily say "you shouldn't be able to have kids, because they have a non-zero chance of murdering natives". You can do the same for the "they suck up our tax dollars" argument. If it is unjust to let people emigrate here because they pose a tiny threat to us (that of a bathtub, in terms of terrorism alone) or suck off us, then ANY new people pose this same problem (and unless one group has a vastly higher rate of these things than the other, there's no reason to treat them differently). I am not less extorted, or less angry about it, when I have to pay for newly born Americans versus immigrants who just arrived. I am not more imperiled by new people via immigration than new people via natural birthrates. Now, if you can show a non-insignificant (yes, I'm aware that it a double negative, and that I keep ending sentences with prepositions...lol) elevated threat level for murder by way of one group versus the other, then we might have something to discuss...but even then...(which brings me to my next point)..
6. Stef rails against collective guilt when it is aimed at him and others by feminists, environmentalists, etc....
...but isn't claiming an entire collective group, of which a tiny minority poses a tiny threat (mindful all humans pose some kind of statistical threat), should be treated collectively just a form of collective guilt? I don't want to call Stef a hypocrite here, but it isn't far off. You can't say feminists and environmentalists shouldn't treat all men and humans (respectively) as guilty just for being men or existing (respectively), and then claim all Muslims should be treated as guilty as a precautionary measure because of what a few individuals (relatively) among them do.
7. Stef says we owe these refugees nothing. I won't reprint the entire text, but I'll link below my post on this subject of refugees, in which I say (among other things):
"ISIS would not exist if we didn't invade Iraq without good evidence they were any threat to "us" or "our" "allies". There isn't a shred of evidence of an operational presence for Al Qaeda (AQ) in Iraq, pre-invasion. Iraq never had a suicide bombing in its history until the invasion. ISIS started out as AQ in Iraq (AQI), but took on a more brutal and territorial ideology and have since been denounced by the main AQ group, and in Syria are fighting against Al-Nursa (AN), a still-endorsed AQ faction. Those AN guys are some of the "moderate Syrian rebels/freedom fighters/Free Syrian Army" the U.S. wants to fund and arm. Yeah, you read that right...fund AQ to fight former AQ (it's like one set of a gang that's gone renegade fighting the original set). Plus Syria has the Assad regime (who "we" are against), and other factions (including anarchists in Turkey's autonomous region of Kurds). ISIS itself is only part religious whackos; the other part is a Baathist army, leftovers from Sadaam's deposed army. So, not only in the "AQ-gives-way-to-ISIS-historically" sense do they owe their existence to "our" invasion, but also on the "half-their-forces-are-guys-from-the-dude-we-overthrew's-former-army" sense. So, don't tell me "we" have no responsibility to these refugees..."we" completely destabilized their countries with an unjustified war of total initiated aggression based on what we now know were conscious lies. We burnt down their house, and now you think we don't owe them a place to crash, especially given it turns out they were no threat to us and some dude lied to us about them being a threat, which prompted us to burn down their house? Seriously?"
That concludes my criticisms of Stef and his terrorism/immigration stances. This applies to many other people too, so I singled Stef out because people know who he is (and his videos on the subject just seem wrong in a few ways to me), but we all know people taking these positions. Again, I'm not a Stef-hater. I suggest people who read this go watch Stefan Molyneux's videos on YouTube (acccounts = "stefbot" and "freedomainradio"), and then decide for themselves who is right, if either of us. Donate to him if you feel his videos are of value to you. Thanks for your valuable time, and take care.
Link to the whole post I quoted in point #7:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1681151522156688&id=100007855696114
