What the Left and Right Have in Common

  • Rondo

    I would like to ban Sharia law in North America. Because it is dangerous to non muslims.

  • mckyj57

    No. There are more reasons to examine Muslim immigration. First of all, they rarely bring benefit to the U.S. After 3 years, 70% are still on food stamps and 85% are on Medicaid. They are very poorly educated, even if they have degrees, often with garbage doctorates like "Islamic Studies".

    Second of all, a high percentage do not support the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights, most notably Article 18. For entry to the US on a path toward residency, we should have a test to determine the position of anyone, no matter their religion, to these principles. It is absurd to admit someone who thinks Sharia is owed a higher debt than the law of the United States. A huge percentage of Muslims put real effort into enforcing bans on apostasy, which is totally against our principles. It is a crime, and by admitting these people we are aiding and abetting crime in the United States.

    These allegiances are why Muslims are so easily "radicalized", to use a term I detest but for which I don't have an alternative. When parents are unbending, there are two ways to rebel. One is to throw off the chains of religion, to become a libertine. This is difficult to do for Muslims, so young ones rebel by becoming ultra-devout and moving toward radical influences.

  • mckyj57

    I agree. There is no such thing as Islamophobia. A phobia is an irrational fear. Until the vast majority of Muslims support the 1948 UN Declaration of Human RIghts, it is supremely rational to fear Islam.

  • libertame

    Of course, the difference is the Left hopes to ban a large group of Americans.

  • Mike

    You are an idiot. Muslims have on average higher income and lower crime rates than the average American.

  • mckyj57

    I didn't talk about American Muslims. I am talking about current Muslim immigrants.

    Sure the Muslim citizen is well off. Until the past 10 years or so, they mostly consisted of people fleeing Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan by choice. Or Pakistanis and Indians who came to educate themselves and stayed. These populations understandably have done well. And they form the majority of established Muslim citizenry.

    Again, I am not against Muslims as Muslims. I am and would be happy to accept more of their best and brightest. I am not for accepting Muslim "refugees", most of whom don't qualify for asylum in the U.S.

    I won't call you an idiot, but in my opinion you are being schooled by someone you called that.

  • irandom419

    I don't think a total RINO like Trump counts as right. As a hard core right winger, I'm in favor of immigration, but unlike Democrats I think we need to vet people. Anyway, I think it was Robert Spencer pointed out that most are peaceful. But some of the problems are that unlike Christianity, where you know churches like Westboro Baptist Church are full of extremist nuts, an otherwise normal mosque could host a small radical group.

  • Mike

    Not once in your post did you mention Refugee. You specifically mentioned Muslim immigrants. A group that is doing significantly better than the average American.

  • Adriana

    That's only a meaningful distinction if you think government intrusions into people's lives only matter when they're directed at Americans.

  • mckyj57

    If you want to talk about ancient history, go ahead. I am talking about our policy today. And when you look at recent Muslim immigrant populations, they are not of the same ilk as the immigrants from 1948-1993. After Oslo, things deteriorated rapidly.

    Some of this is simply socio-economic of course. It is not surprising Somali immigrants have done poorly in the US. They have much higher unemployment, crime, and public assistance rates. But the previous waves of Muslim immigrants to the US were *fleeing* the type of fundamentalism we are now seeing in immigrants. A fundamentalism that has so devastated most of the Middle East that many now want to flee. I don't want that to get a foothold here.

    This ideology is so backward and misogynistic that they try to drive out the only country that is really doing well, Israel. A sane population with good leaders would try to broaden cooperation with Israel so they could improve their lot. But they instead want to kill them. If they killed them, would they be better off? No, they'd be more backward than ever. The only bright spot in their area would be gone.

  • libertame

    You might be thinking of the argument over whether the American government should respect the privacy of non-Americans.

    Here we're talking about immigration. Where is the intrusion into people's lives in immigration policy?

  • Harvey Wallbanger

    My God, what a stupid comment. Nobody is talking about "banning Muslims" you freaking dingbat. We are talking about an immigration pause from Muslim countries to get a handle on what's going on with those who already here and to develop the right policies/procedures moving forward. Muslims - and nobody else for that matter - do not have a constitutional right to come here. But I do have a constitutional right to bear arms. To draw this kind of equivalency reveals your idiocy, nothing more.

  • Adriana

    Well, let's see - the United States government telling an immigrant he can't take a job from a willing employer, that he can't rent property from a willing landlord. I object to the general presumption that it's wrong for the government to interfere in the private and economic spheres of Americans, but it's okay for the government to interfere in the private and economic spheres of immigrants and Americans who might like to live and work together.

  • libertame

    Oh.

    Illegal immigrants are specifically here because they've chosen to break the laws of a democratically-elected government that told them not to trespass. As a point of fact, illegal immigrants specifically are not Americans.

    If you'd like to change the law, argue for change. If you'd like to win the argument, start with non-Orwellian language intended to muddle your point.

    I come at this with some disgust for The Donald's views. But this type of dissimulation makes me want a pox on both your houses.

  • Adriana

    Right, so rather than justify the laws, you're just going to cite the law as it exists and pretend that's an argument.

    We're always going to have a disconnect if you think Americans need government permission to live and work with foreigners, or if you think liberty is something that governments get to deprive others because they're not members of the club.

    Point of fact: trespass is unlawful entrance onto a person's private property. Immigration laws restrict the right of Americans to invite foreigners onto their private property. It's quite ironic that you would use the language of property rights, yet apparently advocate a system that routinely violates them.

  • Eric S

    My sentiments exactly. This was an exceedingly stupid twitter comment. Nobody is talking about "banning Muslims".

  • obloodyhell

    No, he's right, some people are talking about Banning Muslims. No one taken seriously, but still.

    The FLAW in his idiotic comment -- and it lends still more credence to the notion that Warren trolls his own adherents, is the imbecilic notion that only ".1%" of Muslims are dangerous.

    There are a hell of a lot more of them who are dangerous than a mere ".1%", simply because it's that many that go openly jihadist on people. Something upwards to 20% OPENLY support Fanatical Islam. At the BEST these people become a HIDING place from the immediately dangerous ones, almost certainly become FUNDING SOURCES for them and other fanatics, and generally act like they are being "oppressed" when people respond RATIONALLY to the danger that Fanatical Islam represents to ALL OF HUMANITY.

    This says nothing about the portion of the remaining 80% who tacitly, just not openly, support the fanatics. Those, too, may well be considered dangerous, as they are more of classic "fifth column" in place in this nation.

  • texasjimbo

    Stupid comment. Legal gun owners represent a far smaller treat to the welfare of Americans than radical Moslems do. Large numbers of Moslem immigrants insist that we must accommodate them rather than them assimilating. Do you contest any of those assertions? Based on what? Do you find them irrelevant?

  • obloodyhell

    }}} Well, let's see - the United States government telling an immigrant he can't take a job from a willing employer, that he can't rent property from a willing landlord.

    This BS has already been debunked. If America as a group cannot limit immigration then ALL private property rights are null and void. Because you have no right to private property at all, if that's the case. Who the hell can stop ANYONE from coming across our borders and -- only once HERE BY THE MILLIONS -- acting perniciously against the public weal.

    This kind of anarchic notion is confusing libertarianism with total anarchy, and claiming that the government essentially has NO POWER AT ALL.

  • obloodyhell

    }}} Immigration laws restrict the right of Americans to invite foreigners onto their private property.

    When you invent a teleporter so they don't have to have access to -- and use of -- public property, THEN this claim might hold muster.

    Until THEN, it simply offers a chance to prove the already proven "Tragedy of the Commons" problem.

  • obloodyhell

    Even the Westboro Baptist Church isn't nuts enough to be blowing itself up to get closer to God.

  • texasjimbo

    No, a trespass is entry into any location one does not have a legal right to enter. The public/private distinction is completely irrelevant; there are plenty of government properties you can't enter. Citizens of other countries have no intrinsic legal right to enter the US, and their entry without permission is thus illegal. libertame is right, your language is Orwellian. You should take that as a sign that you arguments are a lot weaker than you like to think.

  • texasjimbo

    Adriana has the virtue of being consistent.

  • mesocyclone

    You are demonstrating, for anyone who hasn't noticed, why Libertarianism is a suicide pact. It ignores national boundaries, which are one of the critical things that have created and maintained the freedom that allows Libertarians to exist and spout nonsense.

  • Seekingfactsforsanity

    1% seems to be the go to number. Rich people. Dangerous gun owners. Radical Muslims. Now that is a dependable statistic. I bet 99% of the scientists would agree.

  • Fred_Z

    All caps and bold type do not improve your arguments. They are an implicit insult that we are too stupid to take your points unless you scream them at us.

  • Fred_Z

    An American gun owner who knows of another gun owner planning a terrorist act will call the cops.

    A Muslim will likely not. Large proportions of them support the terrorism and killing, even if they are too cowardly or lazy to act themselves.

  • morganovich

    isn't it already banned?

    we have a constitution and a set of laws in the US. they explicitly separate church and state. they explicitly grant rights to women forbidden by sharia.

    trying to enforce most of sharia law in the US would be a very serious crime.

    much of its treatment of women would be false imprisonment, kidnapping, rape,and murder.

    i'm not clear i see your point here. sharia is a despicable set of laws and practices (to muslims and non muslims), but it's also categorically already illegal in the US, canada, and mexico.

    i mean, try stoning your wife to death on the lawn for having been in a private room with a man that is not in your family or your daughter for having pre marital sex. i suspect you'd find that north american law has some pretty serious things to say about that.

  • uncle_bill

    The difference is that the Right is correct about Muslims, in fact, the 0.1% figure is too low; the Left is wrong about legal gun owners.

  • libertame

    I don't think this is quite fair.

    Most libertarians would not go as far as to argue for the abolition of immigration laws. Some who do, including Coyote, often introduce me to interesting thinking. But generally speaking, libertarianism regards national defense as one of the primary legitimate functions of government.

  • bigmaq1980

    "2.75M Muslims" are in the US
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

    So about 550K people (20%) are "openly supporting Fanatical Islam"? vs <3K (0.1%) are a danger?

    Not sure the references for these percentages, and maybe intuition is the wrong tool to use here in its stead, but if DHS, NSA, DOJ, FBI, etc. are just sitting back when 550,000 people that we know are openly (i.e. actively) providing support to those who would do us harm, that seems a bit of a stretch.

    Seems there are some laws that could be applied there to reduce that number rather significantly.

  • bigmaq1980

    "I bet 99% of the scientists would agree."

    The science is settled.

  • bigmaq1980

    Not sure to disagree or agree.

    Consistency in approach maybe. Adriana has the virtue of attempting to point to problems in others' arguments, or play jujitsu with the English language, but never quite offers up much of an argument of her own. Often they are red herrings, as above, that lead the discussion astray. That is trolling in my books.

    Consistency should be based on providing a view point and answering questions on that view, consistent to a philosophical base. However, when challenged on questions to be answered... crickets, or down the English jujitsu rabbit hole.

    Folks are wasting their time.

  • mesocyclone

    That isn't my experience. Long ago I left the Libertarian party because, while Libertarian theory does allow for government to protect people - national defense, enforcement of laws against persons and property - the Libertarians I ran into had very strong anti-government attitudes that clouded their vision. Coyote is a fine example of that - the idea that government should not have any say over who crosses our borders and who takes up residence is only explicable by a rigid adherence to ideology.

  • libertame

    I guess I don't actually know anyone in the Libertarian Party. I just assumed they think like my friends that label themselves "Libertarian".

    I read Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. They're eminently reasonable, but the party might be a horse of a different color. Thanks for the tip - will keep my eyes open.

  • Daniel Barger

    I suspect a significantly higher percentage of muslims are dangerous than gun owners.

  • NL7

    If your argument is "democracy" then that doesn't brook any difference with guns. If "democracy" can justify banning foreigners then "democracy" can justify banning guns.

  • NL7

    So your argument is for Socratic reasoning, where one party advances a position and then others provide comments and critiques. In this case, libertame advanced a position in response to the blog post. So the Socratic method should apply to libertame answering questions, not Adriana, right?

    If you're saying nobody should advance criticisms or commentary without offering a coherent competing position, then that is not Socratic.

  • NL7

    So America wasn't free until the 1920s? Because the borders were mostly open before then.

  • NL7

    I think you missed the distinction. It was not whether a government can act as a private property owner, which is not at issue. The issue was that it's not "trespass" when a property owner invites a foreigner onto their property. Conflating trespass with immigration violation is a negation of private property, because it implies that the government is the property owner.

    Legally, immigration violations are their own category of offense. They are not based on the common law of property rights. They are a violation against the government's rules, not against a property interest. Conservatives conflate border-crossing with trespass because trespass is a widely acknowledged crime while border-crossing is not inherently immoral. Conflating them implies that the government owns property, which is why the government does not present immigration statutes as an exercise in prosecuting instances of trespass.

  • NL7

    So what if Muslim food sellers agree to be governed by Islamic food law, and agree to inspections and whatever else might be required to sell religiously compliant food? That should be banned? Private religious law?

  • NL7

    It's certainly not all despicable. A lot of it is relatively benign and unremarkable rules relating to food, inheritance, charity, etc. Some of it resembles kashrut in that it's basically pre-modern food safety rules.

  • NL7

    Somebody could argue that technically gun controllers don't want to ban guns, and that nearly all of them would make some allowances for hunting rifles, government-owned weaponry, and maybe certain heavily regulated guns. Would you accept that distinction or would you consider it quibbling? Because by your same standards, almost nobody wants to ban gun owners.

  • NL7
  • NL7

    Your comment, rewritten as if it were made by a left-wing gun hater:

    "My God, what a stupid comment. Nobody is talking about "banning gun owners" you freaking dingbat. We are talking about a pause in dangerous semi-automatic rifles to get a handle on what's going on with those who already own guns and to develop the right policies/procedures moving forward. Gun owners - and nobody else for that matter - do not have a constitutional right to own the most dangerous weapons. But I do have a constitutional right to freedom of religion. To draw this kind of equivalency reveals your idiocy, nothing more."

  • NL7

    If he retains the primary support of roughly 20 to 30% of self-identified Republicans for nearly six months, then it's hard to disavow him from the party. You can rightly define him out of conservatism, but I think being frontrunner Republican makes him "right wing" in at least the casual sense that means "not a Democrat." It's not like the Democrats are terribly socialistic or left-wing in the radical sense, and the most left-wing radicals were always pro-gun because guns spark the people's revolution. I think you're nitpicking a little.

  • Harvey Wallbanger

    I assume this kind of junior high school technique passes for "clever" in your circles? Just makes me laugh...

  • texasjimbo

    It is seriously your contention that one's property rights are absolute? (We've been over this before, and you seem willfully oblivious to the point; I'll assume that's because you don't have a good response). They are not, and rightly so. One can not create noxious sights, sounds, smells or pollutants that significantly impact the quality of life and property values of neighbors. I can't dump radioactive waste in the property next to your residence; I can't play loud music late at night, etc. Your right to free association (the right you mentioned) significantly imposes on my rights of freedom of association as your fellow resident if the foreigners you're inviting onto your property might include some one who wants to set off a bomb in the neighborhood, or if they just leave your property.
    Conservatives don't "conflate border crossing with trespass," they call it that because that because that is what illegal border crossing is (and that is an example of Orwellian language on your part). Please link to a case of a conservative saying border crossing is inherently immoral. I don't think you can. I think you're full of sh*t about that statement and about the issue in general. The left (who some "libertarians," like you, are parroting) is willfully neglecting the huge cultural gulf that exists between us and Islamic countries and the extent to which immigrants often have less pressure to assimilate now than they did 100 years ago.

  • bigmaq1980

    "If you're saying nobody should advance criticisms or commentary without offering a coherent competing position"

    No. But I suspect you know that, as you tend to deal in a similar approach.

    Anyway, last word to you, (make it good) as this is another rabbit hole I won't participate in.

  • Adriana

    Right, we need to restrict the freedoms of Americans and foreigners alike to protect our freedoms. That makes a lot of sense.

    Your other argument is just facile and silly. Open immigration in no way ignores national boundaries, unless you think the United States was without national boundaries before the early 20th century. Don't conflate borders with restrictive immigration.