Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 Muslims should not be allowed to congregate, for the same reasons that communists should not be allowed to run for office in this country. But of course these things could only happen in a society based on , and that followed consistently, rational principles.

You missed my point on initiation of force. Muslims should not only be allowed to congregate, they should also be allowed to have political parties. Being a Muslim is not initiation of force. A Muslim running for political office is not initiation of force.

 

The only thing that shouldn't be allowed is a political party that has it as a platform to impose Islamic law, like the Muslim Brotherhood. Trying to impose Islamic law is initiation of force. And, this should be judged by the same standard other religious parties and candidates are judged. There would need to be incontestable proof that a candidate or party is in fact planning to impose unconstitutional laws, before the courts could exclude them from the political process.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous.

So you would have no problem with an American Nazi party , a group of individuals acting in concert to promote their ideology?

 

Organizations based on antithetical views to western ideals , should be tolerated and allowed to proliferate in a rational society, until of course they commit a physical act of rights violation? Wouldn't this line of reasoning mean that it is okay to allow groups of individuals to conspire openly to circumvent established principles of the rule of law( in the western sense,obviously)?

 

It would not be criminal for me to solicit individuals for the expressed purpose of armed robbery of a bank? or the overthrow through violence of the current government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an American Nazi Party, and its existence is not a threat to the United States as long as it seeks to acheive its goals through elections.  If the United States ever reaches a stage where a significant proportion of its people actually support the aims of the Nazi Party, what good do you suppose it would do that the party itself is banned?  Tell me next time the Nazi Party (all 84 of its members) attempts to overthrow the US government, and we'll talk about whether it should be banned.  They are neanderthals who can't organize a beer run, let alone a coup.

 

And, yes, groups antithetical to Western ideals should be tolerated until they break the law.  Soliciting coconspirators to rob a bank is a violation of the law.  Soliciting like-minded people to form a political party--however distasteful its platform--is not.  Not all Muslims wish for the violent overthrow of Western government.  Spend some time in Sarajevo, if you need more proof.  It is 80% Muslim and is by far the most pro-American city in Europe I have visited.

 

If you seek to ban the speech or congregation of people you disagree with, you are setting a precedent for your own views/ideology to be on the chopping block in the future.  If you seek to protect even your enemies from oppression, then you give yourself good ammunition next time politics swing against you, and your enemies are seeking to silence you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an American Nazi Party, and its existence is not a threat to the United States as long as it seeks to acheive its goals through elections.  If the United States ever reaches a stage where a significant proportion of its people actually support the aims of the Nazi Party, what good do you suppose it would do that the party itself is banned?

Depends on what you mean by "support". If you mean that all these people are willing to fight to the death for those goals, then not much. But that's rarely the case.

On the other hand, if you mean that, just like it was in Nazi Germany, or in modern day Egypt, most people's support is limited to showing up to vote for them, and only a tiny minority is actually willing to also fight and die for them, then the answer is: it does a lot of good to ban them from elections.

"willingness to vote for something" is not the equivalent of "willingness to fight for something". It's much easier for anyone, Nazi or otherwise, to achieve political power through campaigning for votes than it is through fighting. I seriously doubt Hitler could've fought his way to power in Germany, if there were laws in place barring him from running for office.

Look at Gaza, or Egypt, as direct proof of this: Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood have spent decades fighting for power there. And yet, it took a couple of idiotic American Presidents (Bush in Gaza, and Obama in Egypt) to push for democracy, and throngs of western educated useful idiots among their own people, before the Islamists were able to take power and impose a much worse tyranny than before. And look at Egypt now: some of those Islamists are fighting to get their power back, sure. But they have no chance. The vast majority of the people who voted for them are content to sit at home and just accept the current state of affairs. If there are ever elections again, they'll vote for whatever candidates the military allows, and that will be that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×