The Road to Liberty

     With a partnership between orthodox libertarian extremists and certain Muslims, liberty can be achieved in the United States of America.

     Muslims will find many planks in the orthodox libertarian extremist platform attractive. Consider the position of President Thomas Jefferson:

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations— entangling alliances with none.

     With this, the orthodox libertarian extremists will win many friends among the Islamic community, because it means no support for the State of Israel, and because it means no more intervention in Middle-Eastern conflicts. Let us face it, the war in Iraq was started so Vice President Cheney’s friends at Halliburton could make money from Iraqi oil.

Eliminate restrictions on immigration.

     Unlike unorthodox heroes of the liberty movement, such as U.S. Representative Ron Paul, the orthodox libertarian position on immigration is reflected in the words on the Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Send these, thy homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.

     The orthodox libertarian extremist position demands an open-door immigration policy. The federal government does not own the United States of America. If you own your house, you have a right to invite whomever you want.

     This policy on immigration would also invite the Jews. Remember, the establishment of the State of Israel was motivated by the absence of a target land whither Shoah victims could flee from German tyrants. Whilst Hitler burned the house down, the U.S. Government blocked the exit from the outside. Count not only the bodies piled at the door (The S.S. St. Louis comes to mind) but also all the victims who would have seen the exit and escaped if it had not been blocked from the outside.

     The defense of liberty will not sit well with those Muslims who seek to impose Sharia law in the United States. Quite to the contrary, the orthodox libertarian extremist position is that the role of the government is quite limited. As Thomas Jefferson postulated in the Declaration of Independence (1776), We hold these Truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

     For centuries, kings asserted divine right. The Bible contains a number of passages directing Christians to accept divine right. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. 1 Peter 2:13-17. The Founding Fathers in the 1770’s rejected this Biblical directive. Thomas Jefferson was fond of saying, Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. The postulate in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal, rejected the idea that kings were appointed by God.

     The question will no doubt arise, how can orthodox libertarian extremists reject another person’s use of a religious principle as an excuse for violence, while at the same time asserting a religious principle (That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights) as an excuse for a violent revolution against the King of England and his troops? The answer is this: Some say liberty is a God-given right; whilst others say liberty is a natural right. It matters not whether the tide rises and falls because of the will of God or whether the tide is wholly a natural phenomenon in a Godless universe, because either way, the tide rises and falls. Whether rights such as life and liberty are God-given or wholly natural, either way they are rights; and in postulating and asserting the right to liberty, and exercising that right, the person does not violate anybody’s rights.

Taxes for public schools must be eliminated.

     It is a firm position of orthodox libertarian extremists that taxation is theft. By taxation, the persons imposing the tax use gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests to intimidate you into giving up what you earned. Without all that stolen money, the government-run indoctrination centers will quickly go out of business, giving rise to ample opportunities for private and sectarian schools, which, to stay in business, will have to provide good educations.

     In New York City, the public schools are closed on Muslim holidays, but what good is that if you want to move somewhere else? What right have the bureaucrats to trap you in New York City? What right have the bureaucrats to stop you from performing Hajj because your children would be truant? What right have the bureaucrats to compel a parent to turn down a job offer because the hours of the employment do not allow the parent to deliver the children on time to the public schools? What right have the bureaucrats to compel you to pay for the indoctrination of any children in schools that teach that homosexuality is okay?

Eliminate zoning restrictions.

     In many cities and towns, the locals keep control over the school taxes by imposing land-use and zoning restrictions. To build a house, you must buy a plot of land meeting the minimum house-lot size. These laws are intended to control the number of persons moving into the town. They prevent you from putting your children in the public schools by preventing you from acquiring a legal residence within the town. The result is that the resident is paying for a large backyard with money that the resident could be spending on a college education for the sons or daughters.

     Zoning restrictions drive up the cost of housing and with that, the cost of living. Typical zoning restrictions require a parking lot of 34 spaces for a building of 20 apartments, and this means walkers must spend money on the higher rent, instead of saving that money for their family. Zoning restrictions impose great distances which you must travel between home and places where you can shop or work. By banning taverns in residential areas, zoning restrictions compel the alcohol drinkers to drink far from home and then either call a taxicab, which is very expensive, or try to drive home. First, they impose zoning restrictions compelling you to obtain a motorcar to survive, and then they impose taxes and license restrictions to control who can drive a motorcar.

Some orthodox libertarian extremist positions will be harder to sell

Eliminate laws against private discrimination.

     Eliminating the laws against discrimination works both ways. Most businesses will gladly serve persons of any faith or no faith at all. Discrimination by a government agency will still be banned. Would a state university be free to discriminate against Muslims? The answer is that in a free country, there will be no state universities, because they are funded mostly with stolen money. However, Muslims will be free to open businesses and hire Muslims, and perhaps be closed on Friday and open on Sunday. The orthodox libertarian extremist opposes Sunday-closing laws because these laws violate the property and liberty rights of the owner of the business.

     Opening Muslim businesses such as factories can mean break times at Muslim prayer times. Currently, providing preference to Muslims is illegal, but in a free country, a business run by Muslims and hiring Muslims employees who are disciplined, can mean a competitive advantage over another business where they hire Kufr, who report for work late, hung over from a night of drinking alcohol. Each person is a distinct transaction, and many Kufr are well disciplined too, but in a free country, let us hold forth a lively experiment and see which company prospers better.

     A Muslim who opens a business will be free to hire homosexuals, or not. Homosexuals would also be free to open businesses and hire Muslims, or not. Why should a Muslim who is a commercial wedding photographer be forced to participate in a homosexual “marriage” ceremony? Religious objection is not necessary here. Some persons simply do not with to capture that feeling.

Eliminate public welfare.

     At first, this might seem to contradict the Muslim principle of Zakat. However, the Muslims will still be free to give alms, and the important thing is, they can give alms as directed by their God and their scriptures, and not according to the laws of bureaucrats seeking to win elections by buying votes with stolen money.

     Whether the Muslims are actively and consciously competing for domination, or simply seeking prosperity in a competitive environment, the elimination of public welfare will be advantageous to the Islamic community. If the Kufr drink alcohol and get cirrhosis of the liver, why should other persons have to pay for the doctor bills? They brought this upon themselves. The more disciplined Muslims will have more money to invest and prosper by eliminating the taxes imposed upon them by Kufr. The kind and merciful Muslim might offer to help the Kufr who agrees to quit alcohol and live a disciplined lifestyle. There are many Christian denominations operating homeless shelters where the beneficiaries must attend a religious service if they want a bed for the night, and the elimination of public welfare will open opportunities for Muslims to open shelters where homeless persons will learn about the Islamic sect sponsoring the shelter.

     The existence of tax-funded welfare programs motivates many voters to oppose immigration. These voters do not want to pay higher taxes for welfare to immigrants. Eliminating tax-funded welfare will reduce their motivation to restrict immigration, to the benefit of many Muslim families with cousins abroad.

Repeal all drug restrictions.

     This might also seem like a contradiction of Islamic principles, but there will be no compelling the Muslims to drink alcohol or do other harmful drugs. Why should Muslims be forced to pay taxes for the cops to intimidate the Kufr and Muslims into living a healthy, drug-free lifestyle? That is stealing. The drug addict is not violating anybody’s rights by getting high on harmful drugs. When the addicts get fired, jobs will open for Muslims. Muslims will be free to prosper through strength and discipline.

     Let us not forget that on 12 February 2005, two of Allah’s obedient teetotallers were killed when a drunk Chicago cop sped through a red light at 03:06 a.m. in Tinley Park, Illinois and crashed into the car wherein they were riding. Ahmad Shaban was 16, and Mohammed Shuaibi was 17. The underage drinking laws didn’t do them any good. On 20 April 2006, two more of Allah’s obedient teetotallers, Mayada Jafar, 15, and her cousin, Athear Jafar, 16, were killed in Kinnelon, New Jersey when a chronic alcoholic, age 44, crashed into them as they walked along Kinnelon Road. Clearly, drunk driving must be stopped, and the enforcement of laws restricting drinking draw resources away from the enforcement of drunk driving laws and divert blame away from the drunk driver and onto the shoulders of persons who did not commit the crime.

     The more they drink, the more they will break their addiction to driving motorcars. When drinkers demand crosswalk lights and plowed sidewalks, all walkers benefit. When drinkers protest the zoning restrictions, all walkers will benefit. When drinkers lose their licenses and have to take the bus, the added ridership will allow bus companies to extend their hours and routes, to the benefit of all. The punishment must be meted out to the drunk drivers and not to the community at large, through dry county laws, or the citizens younger than 21, through underage drinking laws.

     There are some libertarian extremists who oppose drunk driving laws because it is not until they crash that they have hurt somebody. However, the drunk drivers put the public into a random danger, because when they negotiate a curve, they never know if the car ahead will be stopped, waiting to make a left-hand turn; and if they are intoxicated they will not be able to stop in time. It is this random danger (and not because they might be stupid and pass on a hill, which would be a separate, conscious decision) that entitles the government to impose punishment.

Some Muslims extremists won’t fit the bill.

The initiation of force is unacceptable to orthodox libertarian extremists. This includes forcing anybody to convert to Islam and it includes forcing anybody to comply with laws in which the forbidden act or omission violates nobody’s rights. Throw all the stones you want at the devil, but throwing stones at Kufr will not be tolerated. Neither will the throwing of stones at Muslims be tolerated.