Can you? I don't think there is necesaarily a conflict. Especially considering the fact that islam in its original nature is an colonial system and not just a set of beliefs. I don't necessarily see how it can be contradictory. But can you exclude or 'persecute' people in a libertarian way? Considering the fact that religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs. Why i oppose islam is an discussion on its own so I will not go into it now.
Isn't Islam the religion of peace? In a libertarian society nobody forces you to have dealings with people you don't like, be it for their religion, race, political persuasion or sexual orientation.
Can you be pro-islam and a libertarian?
It almost seems like for many LRC libertarians muslims are no different than hash smoking, dancing rastafarians. There is no genuine libertarian criticism of islam as a political arrangement despite the fact that such systems exist in many prominent countries.
What is meant by "pro-Islam"? What is meant by "Islam as a political arrangement"?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
What is meant by "pro-Islam"?
Supporting Islam?
Islam as a political arrangement
Islam as it is explained in the Quran and Sunna.
So then a person who believes that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad was his prophet, but doesn't agree with everything the Qur'an and Sunna say, is not a Muslim by your definition.
Torsten:Isn't Islam the religion of peace?
Is that a joke?
Papirius:Can you be pro-islam and a libertarian?
oooooOOOOOOoooo
Autolykos:So then a person who believes that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad was his prophet, but doesn't agree with everything the Qur'an and Sunna say, is not a Muslim by your definition.
I'm pretty sure that's the Qur'an's definition (in not so many words.)
I just thought it was interesting, considering
http://thereligionofpeace.com
Torsten:Now I wonder will muslims be welcomed in a libertarian society?
That's an interesting question. If one understands the dictates of libertarianism to be simply property rights and non-aggression, and the dictates of Islam to include calls to aggression, and a different understanding of property rights, it would be difficult to see how the two would mesh. It would seem to me one cannot be a consistent follower of both.
If one were to be a consistent Muslim, I don't really see a lot of his required behavior being tolerated in a libertarian society. And by the same token, if he were to be a consistent libertarian, according to Islam, he wouldn't be a consistent (i.e. good) Muslim.
Actually a person like that is not a muslim according to the Quran and Sunna. According to the Bukhari and Muslim, the two basic sources of Sunna, there is dozens of conditions one has to meet in order to be considered muslim.
You can be anti-Judaism, anti-Christianity, anti-Buddhist, anti-Hindu, and anti-Barney the dinousaur and be libertarian. Being a libertarian has nothing to do with your personal tastes.
But can a libertarian society 'persecute' people to change their beliefs.
But then again, 'true islam' has never been tried!
(end sarcasm)
you12:But can a libertarian society 'persecute' people to change their beliefs.
Define "persecute".
Deny access to property, no tolerance for their beliefs and practices such as a ban on 'friday prayer'. Tax the employers who hire them . No public services such as roads and water.(ofcourse no taxes as well)
Are you sure you are a libertarian?
Al_Gore the Idiot:Are you sure you are a libertarian?
I second that question.
Read the topic title.
Well if your idea of being "anti-Islam" is banning friday prayers then no, you are not a libertarian.
I think one can be "anti-Islam" in the sense of denying all Muslims access to his own property, or not allowing Muslims to pray on his own property, and remain a libertarian. That's just my opinion, though.
Autolykos:I think one can be "anti-Islam" in the sense of denying all Muslims access to his own property, or not allowing Muslims to pray on his own property, and remain a libertarian. That's just my opinion, though.
Yes, but that's different than banning friday prayers.
you12:Deny access to property, no tolerance for their beliefs and practices such as a ban on 'friday prayer'. Tax the employers who hire them . No public services such as roads and water.(ofcourse no taxes as well)
I don't understand. In one sentence you talk about "taxing" people, and in the very next sentence you say "no taxes". This does not make sense. See "law of excluded middle."
Second, I named the two dictates of libertarianism as property rights and non-aggression, and linked you to an excellent piece expounding this. How could you follow up by asking if aggression is a characteristic of a libertarian society?
All of the Judaic religions are based on statism and the goal of monopolising law through invoking some divine right. Today Islam preserves this the most fully of those religions and so in those aspects at least is clearly anti-freedom.
You can be against racism and be a libertarian but a libertarian society can't persecute even nazis or the Westboro Babtist Church. At least not in the sense of imposing special taxes or banning klan meetings or anything.
A Nazi would be able to find store owners who would be willing to sell them goods even if many stores turned them away. If you owned a toll road why would you turn down traffic even if the guy had a swastica tattoo
What I meant was that you tax non muslims for associating with muslims while you don't tax muslims and dont provide them with any service.
Let me make my question more explicit. How can a libertarian society change a group of people with beliefs or charactristics it finds threatening. It could be muslims , communists, socialists. The main objective is to change their beliefs not remove them from physical boundaries.
you12:What I meant was that you tax non muslims for associating with muslims while you don't tax muslims and dont provide them with any service.
In other words, you're talking about charging higher prices for any goods/services you sell to people who associate with Muslims?
I am assuming a minarchist state. Or some authority that applies to everybody.
you12:Let me make my question more explicit. How can a libertarian society get rid of a group of people with beliefs or charactristics it finds threatening. It could be muslims , communists, socialists. The main objective is to change their beliefs not remove them from from certain physical boundaries.
What do you mean by "a libertarian society"?
A textbook libertarian society. Maximum freedoms. No restrictions on almost anything except violence and a small state for national defence and courts as arbitrators. And a small tidit on friday prayers , most prayers are done on loud speakers. What is generally called Azan. Along with muslims gathering in the mosque. While you can't ban people from entering mosques I am pretty sure a libertarian society doesn't allow you to barge your chants everywhere in public through loud speakers.
you12:I am assuming a minarchist state. Or some authority that applies to everybody. [...] A textbook libertarian society. Maximum freedoms.
Oxymoron.
Maximum freedoms. No restrictions on almost anything except...
One. More. Time.
I named the two dictates of libertarianism as property rights and non-aggression, and linked you to an excellent piece expounding this. How could you follow by claiming aggression has a place in a libertarian society?
Torsten:It's the translation of Islam
I thought that Islam meant "submission."
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
What exactly do you find threatening about Muslims? Have you actually visited any of the Muslim countries? Do you really know what the people are like? Or are your beliefs soley based on what you see on TV?
Al_Gore the Idiot:What exactly do you find threatening about Muslims?
I'm not sure what relevance this question has to the question asked, but perhaps one might find the threatening edicts of the religion to be threatening. Or perhaps they might even find (allah forbid) the threatening behavior threatening.
I actually held a positive view of muslims, I believed that the USA should apologize in big banners to the muslim world. Then I met many of them! And connected a lot of the dots. Although this discussion is offtopic so Ill not go into it here. But this quote by churchill covers a lot of the areas:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
Moving on , Popper said this about tolerance:
"we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." (they here means the intolerant)
As Rand once said: When you start with 'because I said so' You eventually end with a gun. So can a libertarian society ever suppress someone. I use the word society to denote a collective action.
Never claimed libertarianism allows aggression. Nor do I argue aggression as its futile. But is there a libertarian way for a libertarian society to change some groups behaviour? Muslims, nazis, stalinists.
you12:Never claimed libertarianism allows aggression.
Oh so these "taxes" in this libertarian society you speak of would be completely voluntary? A voluntary tax? Do we have a third oxymoron on our hands?
Except for appealing to change it, there really isn't. But let's assume area X is a territory with a libertarian society living on it. In the beginning it were mostly liberty minded people living there. Since there were no taxes the people prospered. The wages rose, so employers started recruiting people from outside. Some of them adopted many of the libertarian ideas, but most actually didn't. A significant number of the newbies found it unfair that their wages were so low, while the old libertarian were becoming pretty rich. They also didn't like the mores of the people there and were generally disgruntled. So they started forming a kind of party that aimed for assuming power over area X... Now, if that party would have become strong enough, it would sooner or later be able to implement a state-like structure on area X. They could even recon on the cooperation of some of the more mercantile-minded, yet short-sighted former libertarians to achieve their goal. So this really leads to the question: Should a libertarian society limit access to it. Or should it be open to everyone, regardless of what these people may be doing in the future (Even, if this behavior could have been expected).
if X requires Y, and Y is incompatable with libertarianism, then libertarianism would have to be anti X right?
i would suppose people in a libertarian society would want to hire others with libertarian views and nonhostile idealogies to libertarianism?