tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post663800830015515443..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Islamic Jihad: Hurry Up or Wait?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-49137084148725735802012-03-29T00:37:31.177-04:002012-03-29T00:37:31.177-04:00Excellent comment Ed. And you too riverridesagain....Excellent comment Ed. And you too riverridesagain.<br /><br />Neil, <br /><br />You're right. My bad.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-86714268797532678402012-03-28T17:08:38.952-04:002012-03-28T17:08:38.952-04:00Tad M. Jones: To answer your questions;
Yes, you...Tad M. Jones: To answer your questions;<br /><br />Yes, you could refuse to rent to or otherwise trade with Muslims for any reason one chose, or for anyone for any reason. It needn’t be on an ad hoc basis. Though organizing others to participate in an ad hoc boycott of Muslims would be very difficult.<br /><br />No, I don’t think resorting to a states’ rights tactic would do any good. State constitutions are generally a mess. And if one could by chance have such a “free association” amendment inserted into a state constitution, there would be a host of federal laws that would attempt to override it, either “legally,” or by extortion, e.g., withholding federal highway or welfare funds of one kind or another. <br /><br />Yes, the culture and political climate are much, much worse than they were in Rand’s time. This is most evident when one sees how the Supreme Court justices have questioned the viability of Obamacare.Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-74223475326315461652012-03-28T11:59:25.281-04:002012-03-28T11:59:25.281-04:00Given the declining state of western culture ie in...Given the declining state of western culture ie in the US the acceptance of pc attidudes codified antidiscrimination laws, how can individuals act in an ad hoc fashion to make muslims unwanted? Can a landlord refuse to rent based on religion, or can a shop owner refuse service based on religion(or ideology)?<br />Would it be possible to use states' rights jurisprudence, by having some state or states rewrite or add to their constitutions language to allow the recognition of the right of free association?<br />Culturally the climate seems more dire than when Miss Rand herself wrote on such issues. <br />I refuse to believe the course is inevitable, but it is becoming harder to even glimpse a flicker of light at the end of the tunnel.Tad M Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07937682418709703549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-19615864151062945592012-03-28T07:18:27.870-04:002012-03-28T07:18:27.870-04:00Mr. Max and Ed,
"Begging the question" ...Mr. Max and Ed,<br /><br />"Begging the question" means assuming what needs to be proven. It doesn't mean raising the question.<br /><br />-Neil ParilleNeil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-34836844085871033542012-03-25T21:13:05.543-04:002012-03-25T21:13:05.543-04:00I'd like to second both madmax's and Ed Cl...I'd like to second both madmax's and Ed Cline's questioning of what I consider to be the totally out-of-context open borders policy advocated by ARI. That the U.S. is a welfare state which attracts freeloaders is an objective fact which must be corrected before any such open immigration policy can be rationally adopted. Allowing admission of non-apostate muslims, i.e., devotees of a powerful religious cult sworn to the destruction of all of Western civilization (by violence if "necessary), is indeed nothing short of a suicide pact. How they miss this seemingly obvious point is beyond me.<br /><br />It's been my observation that most people will not take the difficult steps to correct a situation until its most dire consequences are staring them squarely in the face. That's not likely to change in the case of this latest Islamic conquest offensive. People don't need another 9/11 -- they need another Pearl Harbor, complete with the stunning realization of being outnumbered and outgunned by a ruthless militant empire, and the gut-level understanding that failing to correct that imbalance will result in conquest and/or death. Americans have not had that experience for 70 years. How many generations is that? <br /><br />Ed's right that muslims qua muslims should be made as uncomfortable as possible. In other words, if you want to be accepted in America, ditch the ideology that commands you to destroy America and substitute your dark age raghead rules for our constitution. There may not be much to hope for out of the coming election, but if we are fortunate enough to at least remove the Muslim Marxist currently disgracing the office of POTUS, every advantage should be taken of any easing of the current hyper-pc climate of multiculturalism to put pressure on these Islamic invaders to stop demanding special treatment, and on politicians and other officials to stop accommodating them. The resulting screeching, whining, and demonstrating should serve as a useful irritation to the clueless and encouragement to the rest of us to keep the pressure on.<br /><br />A recent commentor on another blog either arrogantly or sarcastically laid out a litany of the pervasive infiltration and co-opting of our institutions by muslims. It is on the same level as (and intertwined with) the Marxist infection that brought us the Obamullah. It may be even harder to eradicate due the pernicious effect of anti-"Islamophobia" propaganda and the superstitious reluctance of too many people to push back against any religion. So any green light on that effort should be seized upon with gratitude and glee.revereridesagainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13443013401059011056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-16126251802116450202012-03-25T19:06:10.123-04:002012-03-25T19:06:10.123-04:00Mad Max: Yes, the column begs the question: what’...Mad Max: Yes, the column begs the question: what’s next? I haven’t sorted that out in my mind yet. And I haven’t really come a long way, as you remark. I’ve always questioned ARI’s “official” stance on immigration, both Mexican and Muslim, that stance being to open the borders to all comers. I would endorse that position with the proviso that first the welfare state must be abolished. Otherwise, the locusts would swamp us. And for the welfare state to be abolished, the government must be evicted from the economy and from the realm of personal liberties. No, ARI hasn’t really tackled the Muslim immigration problem; it’s almost as though it doesn’t exist to them. <br /><br />As for how to rid ourselves of Muslims, that’s a tall order, as well. The best policy would be to make being here as uncomfortable as possible, which would mean forbidding them to practice their creed’s worst aspects – beginning with honor killings and restraints on non-Muslim speech that criticizes or mocks Islam. Governments and companies should stop accommodating Muslims in the way of prayer times, foot bathes, public (audible) calls to prayer, and even removing Islamic holidays from calendars. No time off for Eid or Ramadan or any other Islamic “festival.” Don’t like it, lump it, or go back to where those things are observed. If individual rights were strictly recognized and protected, the U.S. would automatically become an utterly hostile environment for Muslims (and also mooching Mexicans). I’d present them with an ultimatum: repudiate Islam, or go home. And if they’ve become citizens, warn them that the first time there’s a violation of individual rights, damn the Islamic culture and religion, the action will be treated as a legitimate crime. <br /><br />It’s difficult enough to have to face the prospect of the secular statism of Obama and the Democrats. Islam presents an entirely different beast. I don’t pretend to have all the answers as to how to get the country out of the fix it’s in.Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-82619775091900210092012-03-25T17:05:18.807-04:002012-03-25T17:05:18.807-04:00Mad Max: Will reply later.Mad Max: Will reply later.Edward Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12160209827969614964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-4220953723270116102012-03-25T15:08:56.297-04:002012-03-25T15:08:56.297-04:00Ed,
This essay is excellent. But it begs a questi...Ed,<br /><br />This essay is excellent. But it begs a question. You have identified that Islam is evil and that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. You have also identified that the danger to Europe (and eventually America) is the presence of Islam which was brought there by immigrating Muslims.<br /><br />OK, so now here is the million dollar question. What do we do now?<br /><br />I am going to hit you with what Larry Auster hits Mark Steyn with. Steyn constantly complains about Islam but he never takes a stand on MUSLIM IMMIGRATION or the presence of Muslims in Western nations. Should Islam even be allowed to exist in America? Should Muslims be allowed to enter in America? And should we make start a deportation process to rid ourselves of the Muslim presence that is already here?<br /><br />All these questions are legitimate and need to be answered. They also need to be answered with the way most Objectivists view individual rights; ie as a suicide pact. Never once in the last 1l years has ARI ever even addressed the subject of Muslim immigration. IMO that is pure corruption as Muslim immigration is the FIRST question that needs to be addressed NOT war policy as pretty much every O'ist foolishly focuses on.<br /><br />You've come along way Ed. I hope you go further and deal with the folly of allowing a Muslim presence in Western nations at all and the absolute necessity of removing that Muslim presence.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.com