Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dianahsieh

NYC Mosque: Respect Property Rights

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Do you not know any muslims personally? I have a fair number of muslim acquaintances and have no problems with any of them.

Yes I do. I do not care how nice acting some one i disagree with is. If you are wrong and you breed, you fill the world with wrong people who breed. I have been trying real hard lately on thinking up ways to quarantine people from me. If only I could find a Objectivist green mountain moonshiner....I think i could go all Calipto (from Pirates of the Carribean) and live on a swamp.

I don't care but really I think that if one was to really not sanction evil one would have to live on a cave and mow lawns for a living. Maybe I will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't care but really I think that if one was to really not sanction evil one would have to live on a cave and mow lawns for a living. Maybe I will.
While the world is far from ideal, there are a whole host of opportunities for great happiness in the world. The biggest problem with "retiring" from the world is that one gives up the tremendous values in the world. To do so would be the opposite of pursuing values. Rather, find ways in which you can be maximize your happiness, regardless of whether the U.S. looks like France in another decade. I bet there are a few truly happy Frenchmen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway,

I think the one new point that has emerged from this discussion is that zoning laws are corrupt violations of property rights, but a legitimate law and order rationale can justify a property regulation that looks like a zoning law. The location of the former World Trade Center towers now known as "Ground Zero" will forever after have historical and symbolic significance and various individuals and factions will attempt to exploit that symbolism for their own ends. Most of those are legitimate exercises of free speech rights, but some will cross the line into being particularly threatening, intimidating, and disruptive of the peace and order necessary for a large city. Requiring muslims to build any new mosque a block or two further away from their preferred location will prevent the continuous antagonism a triumphalist terrorism-justifying structure will provoke. In relation to property law, the nearest analog I can think of is "coming to the nuisance", where people moving next to farm or factory that makes intrusive smells or noises that impacts the enjoyment of their property have no standing to sue because they assented to the nuisance in moving there.

edit: I found this article (which I will now read so I know what I'm talking about :lol: ): The Antidote for Zoning: The "Coming to the Nuisance" Doctrine (Part 4)

The CapMag article I linked to is split up and the parts don't link to each other. It's just horrible. Here's the full series:

The Evils of Zoning: Subjecting Landowners to Arbitrary Whim

Isn't Zoning Necessary to Prevent Nuisances? (Part 2)

The Antidote for Zoning: Bringing Objectivity to the Land Development Process (Part 3)

The Antidote for Zoning: The "Coming to the Nuisance" Doctrine (Part 4)

Edited by Grames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the issue the way I see it:

Peikoff and his side is wrong for advocating that the power of the state be used in any inappropriate way.

The problem is the fact that any Muslims could live in this country in the first place. They should have a right to citizenship and a right to all there rights to be respected by our gov.

You are confusing Muslims with Islamists. Muslim and Islam are synonymous. Islamism and Muslim is not. Some of the people on this forum really need to get a clue about the religions they are criticizing before they do so. I am utterly amazed at how little the majority of people in the Objectivist movement seem to know about either Muslims or Islam in general aside from what they have seen on PJTV or Capitalismmagazine.com (I am not suggesting information from these sources is automatically wrong, I am suggesting that absorbing this kind of information without alternative sources along with it can be dangerous in that it will lead to unrealistic views at times regarding Islam and Muslims in general). This criticism does not go undeservedly because I have seen this lack of differentiation continuously and it is a differentiation that needs to be made in these types of discussions.

If you are wrong and you breed, you fill the world with wrong people who breed. I have been trying real hard lately on thinking up ways to quarantine people from me.

I hope this is a sick joke because this is not only logically and scientifically wrong but wrong according to the philosophy of Objectivism on several fronts. Thats with ignoring the fact that such comments are simply disturbing to begin with.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are confusing Muslims with Islamists. Muslim and Islam are synonymous. Islamism and Muslim is not. Some of the people on this forum really need to get a clue about the religions they are criticizing before they do so. I am utterly amazed at how little the majority of people in the Objectivist movement seem to know about either Muslims or Islam in general aside from what they have seen on PJTV or Capitalismmagazine.com (I am not suggesting information from these sources is automatically wrong, I am suggesting that absorbing this kind of information without alternative sources along with it can be dangerous in that it will lead to unrealistic views at times regarding Islam and Muslims in general). This criticism does not go undeservedly because I have seen this lack of differentiation continuously and it is a differentiation that needs to be made in these types of discussions.

Cherring109 is wrong for such collectivist thinking, but your version is no better. People act the way they do because of the ideas they accept. Not every muslim accepts all of the ideas in the Koran, but if they were good consistent muslims they would and there is no controversy over just what ideas are in the Koran. Islam is an explicitly violent religion.

6a00d8341c60bf53ef0120a576cdde970b-500wi.jpg?w=450&h=264

From the Koran: "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam he deserves to be killed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually agree with the first part of Cherring's point. This is actually the same point I made in my third paragraph of post 82. I do not believe that a civilized society with largely secure private property rights should tolerate those who hate, agitate, and hunger to fundamentally abolish every foundation of a peaceful and just social order. Utilizing one's private property judiciously, all people interested in the principles of reason, egoism, human cooperation, the trader principle, and the survival of personal freedom should openly and unabashedly discriminate against certain groups, like these pro-Sharia, Jihadist Muslims, the ones who support Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and State Islam, ones that refuse the condemn or make rationalizations for Islamic terrorism and dictatorships, as with other groups of people, like socialists, communists, Marxists, democrats, anarchists, environmentalists, fanatic religionists, belligerent racists, nationalists, Nazis, fascists, protectionists, drug addicts, criminals, parasites, etc. Generally anyone who engages in uncivilized behavior basically. If any capitalist social order is to be maintained, widespread intolerance and ostracism of these things will have to be a part of the culture.

But we cannot tolerate the government utilizing zoning laws and things like that. Grames, I do not see what the concept of easements has to do with one's right to construct a mosque one's justfully acquired property, so long as one has not initiated force. A mosque is nothing like an airport homesteading noise, or a factory homesteading pollution. I fail to see how "coming to the nuisance" can be applied in this case to banning mosques, unless you plan on banning the constitution within two blocks of ground zero.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually agree with the first part of Cherring's point. ... If any capitalist social order is to be maintained, widespread intolerance and ostracism of these things will have to be a part of the culture.
I am never going to boycott the corner convenience store just because the clerk is a muslim if he is polite and does not speak anti-american epithets and praise terrorists. Civil behavior should be rewarded with civil behavior, that is justice.

But we cannot tolerate the government utilizing zoning laws and things like that. Grames, I do not see what the concept of easements has to do with one's right to construct a mosque one's justfully acquired property, so long as one has not initiated force. A mosque is nothing like an airport homesteading noise, or a factory homesteading pollution. I fail to see how "coming to the nuisance" can be applied in this case to banning mosques, unless you plan on banning the constitution within two blocks of ground zero.

Easements and "coming to the nuisance" have nothing to do with each other, you are confused or ill-informed.

Just to make things clear, the party possessing the nuisance is the local government of the City of New York, they have had it since 11 Sept. 2001. The nuisance is the fact of the disaster of 9/11, the buildings that were destroyed and damaged that day, and the context around it particularly its causes which lead any construction of a new mosque on the grounds of the nuisance to be a continuation and fulfillment of the explicit goals of the terrorists. Crime should not pay, and terrorism should not succeed.

The proposed mosque is not merely near "Ground Zero", it is on "Ground Zero" because of the hefty chunk of airplane landing gear that plummeted through the roof of the building at that address. Having the mosque built a few blocks away instead of exactly where they want it does not rise to the level of a violation of any constitutional right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cherring109 is wrong for such collectivist thinking, but your version is no better. People act the way they do because of the ideas they accept. Not every muslim accepts all of the ideas in the Koran, but if they were good consistent muslims they would and there is no controversy over just what ideas are in the Koran. Islam is an explicitly violent religion.

From the Koran: "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam he deserves to be killed."

I hope you didn't take the effort to post that picture yourself. Your argument does not nullify mine and in fact does not even argue against my position. To be Muslim does not require automatically to be consistent or to believe in such texts fully for that matter as there are areas of debate, which is why there are sects and not just one kind of believer in Islam. For instance, all Muslims observe Sunnah, but differences in the definition of what is and what is not Sunnah has led to the emergence of sectarian movements. It goes down to interpretation of the text and the actions that follow from those interpretations, just like with every other religion.

One could argue that the laws of the Old testament are not to be forgotten (which can easily be as violent as those of the Quran, which I have read and in fact have sitting 5 feet from my desk) in light of the new teachings (as Jesus stated multiple times within the bible, also sitting a few feet from my desk) yet we are not suggesting the churches of the average American moderate Christian be treated as an overt and active threat nor the moderate Christians themselves. This is why the differentiation is important and equally necessary. It is the Islamists we are at war with (even if not explicitly as part of our nations policy, albeit that is another subject of discussion), and this is what we must keep in mind.

"Not every muslim accepts all of the ideas in the Koran, but if they were good consistent muslims they would and there is no controversy over just what ideas are in the Koran. Islam is an explicitly violent religion."

If you bothered to take a look around you would notice I have never argued against these statements on the forum or in the chat room.

P.S.-Whoever posted that picture originally really needs to stop biting their nails, damn!

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could argue that the laws of the Old testament are not to be forgotten (which can easily be as violent as those of the Quran, which I have read and in fact have sitting 5 feet from my desk) in light of the new teachings (as Jesus stated multiple times within the bible, also sitting a few feet from my desk) yet we are not suggesting the churches of the average American moderate Christian be treated as an overt and active threat nor the moderate Christians themselves.

Any fans of the West Wing here? This is one of my favorite scenes:

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am never going to boycott the corner convenience store just because the clerk is a muslim if he is polite and does not speak anti-american epithets and praise terrorists. Civil behavior should be rewarded with civil behavior, that is justice.

Oh I see. (You'll notice I said uncivilized behavior, so your reply doesn't really apply to anything I said.) But I see. So there's no reason to discriminate against a Muslim, if he is not speaking anti-American epithets, praising terrorists, and is behaving in a civil manner. Certainly, if you would not boycott him, I am assuming that you would also demand his property rights be recognized. But what if the man at the convenience store uttered some less than civil remarks about America? Would you agitate the government to bomb his store then? If not, why not?

But what if the man was civilized, except for his religious beliefs of course, he is still Muslim. And the polite Muslim man built a mosque instead of a corner convenience store? Would you still respect his rights? What if that mosque was less than two blocks from ground zero? Would you bomb his property then? If so, why?

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I see. (You'll notice I said uncivilized behavior, so your reply doesn't really apply to anything I said.) But I see. So there's no reason to discriminate against a Muslim, if he is not speaking anti-American epithets, praising terrorists, and is behaving in a civil manner. Certainly, if you would not boycott him, I am assuming that you would also demand his property rights be recognized. But what if the man at the convenience store uttered some less than civil remarks about America? Would you agitate the government to bomb his store then? If not, why not?

His property rights should be recognized. Bombing as a response to remarks would be an unjust overreaction.

But what if the man was civilized, except for his religious beliefs of course, he is still Muslim. And the polite Muslim man built a mosque instead of a corner convenience store? Would you still respect his rights? What if that mosque was less than two blocks from ground zero? Would you bomb his property then? If so, why?

Yes I would still respect his rights unless the mosque is on the ground zero, there is no right to build a mosque there. I'll not be bombing anybody in any event because I'm not a vigilante.

Do these answers surprise you? Would you do differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have read all your posts in here and I have no idea how you arrived at such a conclusion. Is there no right to build a mosque, if one has justly acquired the property through a voluntary transfer of property titles, on this area you designate as ground zero, but adjacent, literally bordering it there is a right to build a mosque (given the voluntary transfer, etc.)? (Assume voluntary trade from here on.) Is there a right to build a convenience store on ground zero? Is there a right to be a Muslim building that convenience store? Is there a right to be a Muslim in that convenience store making some anti-American remarks or should that convenience store be bombed?

Is there a right to be a Muslim and stand with one's own physical body and whatever ground used as standing room on ground zero, given one has permission to do so from the property owner? Is there a right to be a Muslim and stand with one's own physical body and whatever ground used as standing room on ground zero, given the permission, and pray to Mecca? Or make an anti-American remark? Or should that Muslim be bombed? (by the US government of course)

What is the criteria justifying the use of force to prevent a non-force-initiating Muslim from obtaining exclusive property on ground zero?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you didn't take the effort to post that picture yourself. Your argument does not nullify mine and in fact does not even argue against my position. To be Muslim does not require automatically to be consistent or to believe in such texts fully for that matter as there are areas of debate, which is why there are sects and not just one kind of believer in Islam. For instance, all Muslims observe Sunnah, but differences in the definition of what is and what is not Sunnah has led to the emergence of sectarian movements. It goes down to interpretation of the text and the actions that follow from those interpretations, just like with every other religion.

All of the sects want to see shariah imposed where they live. Differences in tactics or slight differences in what shariah law is are not terribly important to non-muslims.

One could argue that the laws of the Old testament are not to be forgotten (which can easily be as violent as those of the Quran, which I have read and in fact have sitting 5 feet from my desk) in light of the new teachings (as Jesus stated multiple times within the bible, also sitting a few feet from my desk) yet we are not suggesting the churches of the average American moderate Christian be treated as an overt and active threat nor the moderate Christians themselves.
I don't know who "we" refers to but Paul Hsieh's misgivings about stopping this mosque are framed in terms of terror at the prospect of the Christian Totalitarian Backlash. He regards christians as at least equally if not more dangerous than muslims, which is not a credible position in my judgement. There is not nearly the degree of uniformity among the christians as there is among the muslims, in part because the the premise that the bible is the literal word of God is not widely shared while the Koran is universally acknowledged among the muslims as the literal word of Allah. Islam is just better at being a religion, it is more consistent in the Randian sense of who will win in an ideological conflict. Islam has only ever been beaten back with force and technology, never out-debated or by conversion.

This is why the differentiation is important and equally necessary. It is the Islamists we are at war with (even if not explicitly as part of our nations policy, albeit that is another subject of discussion), and this is what we must keep in mind.
On Ground Zero a mosque is a mosque, it makes the same statement no matter which sect builds it: terrorism is an effective means to spread Islam and shariah law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have read all your posts in here and I have no idea how you arrived at such a conclusion. Is there no right to build a mosque, if one has justly acquired the property through a voluntary transfer of property titles, on this area you designate as ground zero, but adjacent, literally bordering it there is a right to build a mosque (given the voluntary transfer, etc.)?

Yes, no matter how "Ground Zero" is defined it has a border and it will acceptable to build a mosque adjacent to the border. An indefinite boundary would be non-objective. I would want the definition of Ground Zero to include all of the property that was damaged by aircraft and collapsing buildings and a modest respectful distance around it so as to preclude the possibility of some minaret looming over those addresses from an adjacent address.

{omitting the quote blocks for readability} My replies are in green, the official color of Islam.

(Assume voluntary trade from here on.) Is there a right to build a convenience store on ground zero? Yes.

Is there a right to be a Muslim building that convenience store? Yes.

Is there a right to be a Muslim in that convenience store making some anti-American remarks or should that convenience store be bombed? Within the First Amendment rights to speech, yes there is a right.

Is there a right to be a Muslim and stand with one's own physical body and whatever ground used as standing room on ground zero, given one has permission to do so from the property owner? Yes.

Is there a right to be a Muslim and stand with one's own physical body and whatever ground used as standing room on ground zero, given the permission, and pray to Mecca? Yes.

Or make an anti-American remark? Yes.

What is the criteria justifying the use of force to prevent a non-force-initiating Muslim from obtaining exclusive property on ground zero? Property that is only available for sale and conversion to a mosque because of the damage caused by the mosque based ideology behind the terrorist attack is a transaction initiated by force. Property that is a desirable location for a mosque because a holy relic fell on it is a transaction with an implicit threat behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase my entire first post. I would support a voluntary nation wide boycott on all business by Muslims.

Islam-ism is Islam is Muslims. I know this for a fact, I was a Bahai for several months and called the Quran holy scripture.

Every is implies a ought. Is they dangerous? Is they wanna put me in dimutude? Is they wanna kill me? Then I ought not support my own destroyers. End of story. I believe that their rights ought to be protected, and so should mine. Last time I checked one of my rights was to do business with who I damn well please and that will not be Muslims. Thank you! End of story. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The famous or infamous camels nose in the tent.

How much more of the camel shall we allow inside?

If you are going to continue to post useless comments and troll about I suggest you just leave the forums if you are not going to bring anything of value to the table.

Islam-ism is Islam is Muslims.

No it is not. The three are not automatically synonymous. Only the latter two. Your personal adventures and interpretations don't prove anything, you have to prove it with facts. If you want me to make a long drawn-out explanation as to the difference between Islamism and Islam I can do that. It is obvious you have a bias against all Muslims in general regardless of their individual characteristics, you are suggesting a form of collectivist thought as Grames pointed out, even in your revised post, and so I would not be surprised if you interpreted things during your adventures to support your bias, either during or after the fact. In Grames convenience store example he is doing the right thing as he is not judging the man simply because he is Muslim but because of his actions in addition to that fact, his individual attributes.

All of the sects want to see shariah imposed where they live. Differences in tactics or slight differences in what shariah law is are not terribly important to non-muslims.

I think it would be best for you to inform my Muslim friends of this. I don't think all of them are aware that they want to impose shariah law, and apparently you know what they are supposed to believe better than them.

On Ground Zero a mosque is a mosque, it makes the same statement no matter which sect builds it: terrorism is an effective means to spread Islam and shariah law.

I don't know who "we" refers to but Paul Hsieh's misgivings about stopping this mosque are framed in terms of terror at the prospect of the Christian Totalitarian Backlash. He regards christians as at least equally if not more dangerous than muslims, which is not a credible position in my judgement. There is not nearly the degree of uniformity among the christians as there is among the muslims, in part because the the premise that the bible is the literal word of God is not widely shared while the Koran is universally acknowledged among the muslims as the literal word of Allah. Islam is just better at being a religion, it is more consistent in the Randian sense of who will win in an ideological conflict. Islam has only ever been beaten back with force and technology, never out-debated or by conversion.

I am unfamiliar with and also disagree with Paul Hsieh's comments. I was speaking about the Objectivist movement in general with respect to "we".

All I can say regarding the rest of this response to what you quoted is "whooooosh!!!"

On Ground Zero a mosque is a mosque, it makes the same statement no matter which sect builds it: terrorism is an effective means to spread Islam and shariah law.

To neither me or, apparently, others in this thread have you given a convincing argument as to why all of the rules are different merely because its on some land that happened to have some blown up parts of a building (or the hostile aircraft) on it or near it. A mosque is by definition "a place of worship for followers of Islam" nothing more and nothing less, it does not imply terrorism, and it does indeed matter who builds it, do they have connections to terrorist or other actively hostile groups advocating totalitarian islam? Is the money coming from one of these groups? Or is it just another Mosque out of the thousands with an Imam that has fringe views? These are all important questions, and they are the crux of evaluation. You seem to be equating any Mosque that happens to be built within the vicinity of the 9/11 location as purposefully provocative and will necessarily advocate terrorism/violent islamic fundamentalism. If I am misunderstanding you please clarify this but right now this seems to be my interpretation.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is: Does the initiation of force that caused Ground Zero in the first place, justify further force against people who want to legally utilize that space?

The rationale being that these people are connected to the initiators by race and religion.

I don't want to over-simplify this argument, and like you others here, have been wrestling with it.

But after all, they are American Muslims. Do they not deserve the benefit of the doubt? Despite their lack of diplomacy and sensitivity (putting it very mildly!)

That's the 'trouble' with Individualism - at person to person level, or as here, with individual rights:

It requires far more work and thought for O'ists to take each action, context or human being on their own, and not descend to irrational collectivization; of course I know that that's the moral beauty of Individualism, too.

No, Islam did not bring down the Twin Towers - people did.

People who were in a gang, in a sub-group, of a sub-set, of a sect in Islam.

These gangs and all who concretely support them are the ones who should be identified and targeted, mercilessly.

But I believe that without evidence to the contrary, the US Muslims must be treated as Americans - and individuals- first and foremost.

THAT is what the USA became rightly admired for, and to do anything else would be a moral victory for her enemies, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But after all, they are American Muslims. Do they not deserve the benefit of the doubt?

A crime is the violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others- i.e., the recourse to violence- that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong). Ideas, in a free society, are not a crime- and neither can they serve as the justification of a crime.

Ayn Rand

No, Islam did not bring down the Twin Towers - people did.

People who were in a gang, in a sub-group, of a sub-set, of a sect in Islam.

These gangs and all who concretely support them are the ones who should be identified and targeted, mercilessly.

But I believe that without evidence to the contrary, the US Muslims must be treated as Americans - and individuals- first and foremost.

THAT is what the USA became rightly admired for, and to do anything else would be a moral victory for her enemies, imo.

Agreed

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is: Does the initiation of force that caused Ground Zero in the first place, justify further force against people who want to legally utilize that space?

The rationale being that these people are connected to the initiators by race and religion.

I don't want to over-simplify this argument, and like you others here, have been wrestling with it.

But after all, they are American Muslims. Do they not deserve the benefit of the doubt? Despite their lack of diplomacy and sensitivity (putting it very mildly!)

Race has nothing to do with it.

No. They would be benefiting from what is effectively stolen property, first damaged by their associates and then bought for a lower price. It is also exactly what the terrorists wanted, to replace secular buildings with religious buildings. A 100 million dollar super mosque is an Islamic Arc de Triomphe celebrating terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be best for you to inform my Muslim friends of this. I don't think all of them are aware that they want to impose shariah law, and apparently you know what they are supposed to believe better than them.

They are not the Saudi Wahabis who will be funding the construction and operations of this mosque.

To neither me or, apparently, others in this thread have you given a convincing argument as to why all of the rules are different merely because its on some land that happened to have some blown up parts of a building (or the hostile aircraft) on it or near it. A mosque is by definition "a place of worship for followers of Islam" nothing more and nothing less, it does not imply terrorism, and it does indeed matter who builds it, do they have connections to terrorist or other actively hostile groups advocating totalitarian islam? Is the money coming from one of these groups? Or is it just another Mosque out of the thousands with an Imam that has fringe views? These are all important questions, and they are the crux of evaluation. You seem to be equating any Mosque that happens to be built within the vicinity of the 9/11 location as purposefully provocative and will necessarily advocate terrorism/violent islamic fundamentalism. If I am misunderstanding you please clarify this but right now this seems to be my interpretation.

I've already answered those questions. You simply don't like the answers, and instead of responding just insist on the same views you started with as if I have written nothing.

The proposed mosque is not merely "in the vicinity" of Ground Zero, it is on it. It is the reason why the location is desired for a mosque. The mosque is purposefully provocative, celebrates terrorism and whole corrupt transaction is only possible because of damage caused by the terrorism. Peaceful muslims are useful idiots that cooperate with and provide cover for the serious muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...