Libertarian Party to Muslims: We stand with you

The Libertarian National Committee issued the following press release on January 29 (original here). Note that this release came out prior to Sunday’s Quebec mosque attack and prior to full bloom of the constitutional crisis over US president Donald Trump’s entry/travel ban on citizens of some Muslim countries. There may be additional LPHQ statements as those situations develop.

Libertarian Party to Muslims: We Stand With You.

For Immediate Release
January 29, 2017
Contact: Carla Howell, media [at] LP [dot] org or (202) 333-0008 x 222

In the early morning hours of January 28th, a fire broke out in the Victoria Islamic Center in Victoria, TX. It quickly destroyed the whole building. The cause has not officially been determined.

Two weeks ago, another mosque, the Islamic Center of Lake Travis, in Austin, TX, burned. Again, the cause of the fire has not been officially determined.

Both mosques have previously been vandalized. And the mosque in Victoria was burglarized last week.

Regardless of the causes of these fires, the Libertarian Party extends sympathy to the Muslim communities in these towns and across America.

As one member of the mosque in Austin, TX, said, “We are all just praying it wasn’t a hate crime.”

Indeed. The Libertarian Party hopes that these fires were caused by some innocent accident. But the fact that our Muslim brothers and sisters even have to worry about hate crimes perpetrated against them or their buildings of worship is a sad statement on current affairs in America.

New executive orders have barred entry of people from 7 countries that are mostly Muslim. We’ve heard talk of registries for Muslim Americans. And we’ve heard a lot of nasty rhetoric from the President and others. Muslim Americans have every reason to feel uncomfortable. And their concern should be the concern of every American.

Libertarian Party Chair, Nicholas Sarwark, says, “America was founded on freedom, including and perhaps especially freedom of religion. It is central to who we are as Americans and it is values such as this that make our country great. When we lose sight of these values, our country ceases to be great.”

He continues, “There are two real threats here: One is the infringement on people’s rights to live and worship as they see fit. The other is the complacency that some Americans have about it.”

The Libertarian Party calls on all Americans not to be complacent when the rights of one group, any group, are infringed. Sarwark says, “When we allow one group’s rights to be degraded, we are degrading the human rights of all of us, and degrading our country.”

Today and everyday, the Libertarian Party stands for the rights of all people, all the time.

Today and everyday, the Libertarian Party says to our Muslim brothers and sisters, we are with you. We have your back. We’ll do our best to speak out and amplify your voice. We hope and pray that a registry is never created. But if one is, we will oppose it vigorously and you can rest assured that many of our members will register themselves in protest. We will speak out against travel and immigration bans. We will speak out loudly against any and all acts of violence or destruction that may be committed against you. When your rights and humanity are infringed upon, we stand with you.

###

 

37 thoughts on “Libertarian Party to Muslims: We stand with you

  1. Shane

    Wow. That’s simply ignorant.

    First a registry is simply hyperbole and liberal nonsense.

    Second, since when do non-citizens have a right to enter US borders? We’re talking reality not libertarian fantasy-land (get rid of the welfare and entitlement state and we can discuss open borders).

    Third, the LP is now an advocate of “hate crime” designations?

    Finally, why is the LP falling for the liberal talking-point that this is a Muslim ban? Are we going to start calling anyone who disagrees with us “racists” as well?

    WTF?

  2. Tony From Long Island

    SHANE ” . . . .Wow. That’s simply ignorant. . . . . First a registry is simply hyperbole and liberal nonsense. . . . . ”

    Umm . . .Shane . . . Darth Trump was asked a very direct question by a single reporter (not during a press conference) during the campaign regarding a “muslim registry” and he responded that he would certainly consider that.

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trump+muslim+database+quote&&view=detail&mid=DE92D47C0C3DA46AC8CADE92D47C0C3DA46AC8CA&FORM=VRDGAR

  3. Tony From Long Island

    Shane: ” . . . . .Second, since when do non-citizens have a right to enter US borders? . . . . ”

    Oh. so you are for barring people from entering our great nation simply based on their religion? Ok. I get it.

    Why does there have to be some fundamental right involved to see that something is fundamentally ethically wrong?

    Am I allowed to stay here if I am an atheist?

  4. paulie

    First a registry is simply hyperbole and liberal nonsense.

    No, it’s a promise that Donald Trump made repeatedly when he ran for office. His lawyers probably told him that he does not have such an authority with executive orders and that it wouldn’t hold up in the courts, at least until he gets a chance to make his judicial appointments, so he’s starting with the travel bans. I suspect he won’t stop there though.

    Second, since when do non-citizens have a right to enter US borders?

    If you want to talk what the regime considers law, the 1965 immigration act barred discrimination based on nation of origin. If you want to talk libertarian theory, governments are not the proper owners or co-owners of all territory in their borders, thus have no authority to claim someone is “trespassing” on “their” property.

    get rid of the welfare and entitlement state and we can discuss open borders

    If you hold freedom policies hostage to other freedom policies passing first, you’ll never get any freedom policies.

    For example::

    “Get rid of welfare and socialist healthcare and only then we can discuss ending drug prohibition” (since some addicts will end up getting welfare or unable to pay their medical bills)

    “Get rid of taxes, regulation and occupational licensing and only then can we discuss getting rid of welfare and socialist healthcare” (since the regime hamstringing the economy will make it impossible for some people to earn a living or afford healthcare)

    And so on. We can literally invent “hostage clauses” like this to prevent any cuts to any aspect of the size and scope of government power from ever passing.

    Third, the LP is now an advocate of “hate crime” designations?

    I did not see anything that said we support hate crime designations. It’s a reality that some crimes are motivated by bigotry. Colloquially, “hate crimes.” It doesn’t follow that we support having a different legal status for hate crimes.

    Finally, why is the LP falling for the liberal talking-point that this is a Muslim ban?

    The press release came out before the ban, so that’s a non-sequitur. And, actually, it is a Muslim ban, which Trump explicitly promised when he campaigned, without the qualifiers. Now, it’s true that so far it includes only 7 of the many Muslim-majority nations, which makes it all the more weird, because there is nothing indicating that immigrants from these countries are any more of a terrorist threat than immigrants from other Muslim countries. However, it’s worth noting, especially in the context of Trump’s campaign promises, that all seven nations so far included in the ban are majority-Muslim. We have no reason to assume that the ban won’t expand to other majority-Muslim nations. Furthermore, Trump has explicitly said that he will make exceptions for religious minorities from those countries in his interview with CBN and I think maybe a few other places. So, it is even more obviously intended as a Muslim ban (although not a ban on all Muslims, at least yet). It’s as close to an actual Muslim ban as he thinks he can get away with legally at this point in time, but give him time.

    Are we going to start calling anyone who disagrees with us “racists” as well?

    No, only the actual racists. There are obviously lots of other reasons why people disagree with us.

    WTF?

    And SSMT. Twice on the second S.

  5. Tony From Long Island

    Andy, that’s very un-libertarian of you! I see we have an issue where I am the more libertarian. I’m shocked. I guess your libertarian bona fides only come out when it involves people who look like you.

    #sad #nutbag-conspiracy-theorist #Kneejerk-Reaction-to-be-constantly-angry

  6. paulie

    Well that’s funny, I think I understand the issues pretty well, and I do believe the open borders position is more libertarian.

  7. Tony From Long Island

    Andy, please explain to me how libertarian philosophy supports a ban on people entering our great nation. I’d love to hear your explanation.

    Explain how you can support barring people from entering our country based on their religion and some random decision regarding what country they are travelling from. Please. I am all ears.

    Harry Browne would be very disappointed in you.

  8. Shane

    The release is intellectually dishonest with the intent of appealing to a certain demographic — while turning off a larger swath of people who understand nuance.

    So we abandon integrity if it gets us a few more members?

    Glad to know.

    Spin all you want but it’s not a “muslim ban.” If Trump bans access from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., then I’ll agree that it is. The nations on the list either have no government to assist in vetting or are uncooperative AND they are known homes to terrorism.

    I’m all for the freedom of open borders, but you can’t have an interventionist/welfare/entitlement state and also have open borders.

    Resolve those issues and let’s open her up.

  9. paulie

    So we abandon integrity if it gets us a few more members?

    How does it abandon integrity?

    Spin all you want but it’s not a “muslim ban.” If Trump bans access from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., then I’ll agree that it is.

    A ban on alcohol sales on Sundays is a type of alcohol ban, even though it’s only on Sundays. And as Knapp’s introductory blurb say, Note that this release came out prior to Sunday’s Quebec mosque attack and prior to full bloom of the constitutional crisis over US president Donald Trump’s entry/travel ban on citizens of some Muslim countries.

    The nations on the list either have no government to assist in vetting

    And yet there is already an extensive vetting process for refugees, so I guess it must be possible to do without their government’s help.

    or are uncooperative AND they are known homes to terrorism.

    And yet refugees from these countries are not the ones carrying out terrorist attacks in the US.

    I’m all for the freedom of open borders, but you can’t have an interventionist/welfare/entitlement state and also have open borders.

    Resolve those issues and let’s open her up.

    I addressed this earlier.

  10. Andy

    I was referring to Tony when I said a lack of understanding of issues/philosophy.

    I do however disagree that “open borders” in the context of a democratic welfare state is a libertarian position, or a sound strategy. I also disagree that “open borders” would exist, at least not on a large scale, if at all, in a stateless society, because in the abscense of the state, there would be private property borders, and migration policies would be set by property owners, or groups of property owners working in voluntary associations. It is possible that some land owners may chose to keep their property borders “open”, but I bet most would place various restrictions on entrance/”immigration” policy.

  11. Tony From Long Island

    SUGARSHANE ” . . . If Trump bans access from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc., then I’ll agree that it is. The nations on the list either have no government to assist in vetting or are uncooperative AND they are known homes to terrorism. . . . . ”

    Come now. Darth Trump would not ban travel from a country he has billions invested in! Plus actual terrorists who attacked America came from Saudi Arabia. That would only make sense. So he won’t add them.

    Second, Please list for me all terrorist attacks on American soil perpetrated by someone who traveled from one of the countries listed in this executive order.

  12. Deran

    This is what I expected from the actual Libertarian Party. This is also another good reason why I really thought the LP and Johnson/Weld could have (the LP still can imo) made some hay by participating in Democracy Now’s post-Two Party presidential candidates forum where GP candidate ended up doing her own follow up answers to the “debate” “moderator/ host” questions to Clinton and Trump.

  13. Jill Pyeatt

    Second, Please list for me all terrorist attacks on American soil perpetrated by someone who traveled from one of the countries listed in this executive order.

    Thank you, Tony! This is what blows my mind. It isn’t people from those countries who come here to wreak havoc.

  14. Tony From Long Island

    It’s nice when we agree on something, eh Jill? 🙂

    I also feel, though, that even if there had been one single person who had somehow eluded our vetting process, you can not have a blanket ban, especially people fleeing the terrible horrific situation in Syria.

  15. Jill Pyeatt

    I also feel, though, that even if there had been one single person who had somehow eluded our vetting process, you can not have a blanket ban, especially people fleeing the terrible horrific situation in Syria.

    Same here. I’ll accept the risk of a terrorist here and there if we’re able to allow thousands of people escape violence and/or poverty from their home countries (especially if we’ve helped create that violence and poverty).

  16. dL

    get rid of the welfare and entitlement state and we can discuss open borders

    Suicide pact. The power to redistribute income(btw, most of that flows up or sideways, not down) thusly confers the power to “regulate borders.” You could argue against every single liberty using that argument. Indeed, every single liberty has been argued against using that argument, whether it be food, guns, drugs, travel, trade, etc. A suicide pact is where one idiot playing a bad strategy forces everyone to play a bad strategy.

  17. paulie

    I do however disagree that “open borders” in the context of a democratic welfare state is a libertarian position, or a sound strategy.

    Addressed this earlier.

    I also disagree that “open borders” would exist, at least not on a large scale, if at all, in a stateless society, because in the abscense of the state, there would be private property borders, and migration policies would be set by property owners, or groups of property owners working in voluntary associations.

    I’m in favor of property lines. Open borders does not mean no property lines. The government (regime) is not the legitimate owner or part-owner of all property in the country, and if it were it would have a lot of “property rights” that most people (and especially libertarians) would not ever want it to have. Open borders means no government interference preventing property owners from hiring, renting to, and selling their goods and services to people who would have to cross a regime border – not a legitimate property line – for them to do so. Imagine for example, business owner A wants to sell to his neighbor B and hire his neighbor C, but B and C are across a regime border from A. Who is the force-initiator when the regime enforces its border in this example to prevent A, B and C from engaging in mutually voluntary commerce? This is very basic stuff and we have been over it many times here.

    It is possible that some land owners may chose to keep their property borders “open”, but I bet most would place various restrictions on entrance/”immigration” policy.

    Common law has evolved over centuries to include the concept of easement. That includes generally letting travellers pass. Land owners who would conspire to prevent all their neighbors from going to and from work, and from getting back and forth to be able to buy and sell from each other, would soon find everyone else unwilling to hire them, work for them, or buy or sell them anything. Thus, while property owners would certainly have rights over their property, those rights would generally be “eased” to allow commerce to function. And even if every single property owner was an asshole who built walls around his or her property and did not anyone in or out, that would be their decision to make, not for some collectivist entity which pretends to speak for everyone.

    There’s just no legitimate equivalence between property lines and regime borders.

  18. paulie

    Suicide pact. The power to redistribute income(btw, most of that flows up or sideways, not down) thusly confers the power to “regulate borders.” You could argue against every single liberty using that argument. Indeed, every single liberty has been argued against using that argument, whether it be food, guns, drugs, travel, trade, etc. A suicide pact is where one idiot playing a bad strategy forces everyone to play a bad strategy.

    Exactly.

  19. Andy

    Shane said: “I’m all for the freedom of open borders, but you can’t have an interventionist/welfare/entitlement state and also have open borders.

    Resolve those issues and let’s open her up.”

    I agree with Shane’s general point here, however, once again, even under the scenario where the state is abolished (not likely to happen anytime soon), there’d still be private property borders, some with restrictive entrance policies, and others with less restrictive entrance policies.

  20. dL

    Addressed this earlier.

    It’s been addressed earlier a million times. HoppeBots basically are programmed with w/ one if/else conditional statement in terms of adaptive intelligence.

  21. Andy

    dL said: “You could argue against every single liberty using that argument. Indeed, every single liberty has been argued against using that argument, whether it be food, guns, drugs, travel, trade, etc.”

    This is NOT a valid argument at all. Food, guns, drugs, etc…, do not vote in elections and do not collect welfare. Also, you are going with the false assumption that there is some “right” to go on to any property. This would be likely saying that I could move in your backyard.

    The point of the Free State Project, in New Hampshire as well as Liberland (a proposed libertarian country in Europe), and Liberstad (a proposed libertarian private city in Norway), is for enough libertarians to move to the same land area so they can form a libertarian society.

    What kind of society would you expect to be formed if a bunch of Muslim religious extremists move into the same area? Would you expect it to look like the same kind of society that would be formed by a bunch of libertarians moving into the same area, or would it look more like something like say Saudi Arabia?

    How about if a bunch of socialists move into the same area? Would you expect them to come up with a society that is libertarian?

    Suppose you are trying to elect enough libertarians to local government offices in whatever city/town or county that you are in, and suppose a bunch of Democrats or Republicans move in to your city/town, and it dilutes the vote to the point where you can’t elect enough libertarians to take over your city/town or county (like say it is a low population area, but you have a strong local LP, but then a new development is built and a bunch Democrats or Republicans move in to the area, or suppose that the local government in annexed by a nearby city/town or county that has a greater population, and is dominated by Democrats and/or Republicans, and now your local LP affiliate is outvoted and you have lost your chance for a libertarian takeover).

  22. paulie

    It’s been addressed earlier a million times.

    LOL. yeah, I only meant earlier today in this same thread. I’m not pretending to be some original thinker who just made an earth-shattering breakthrough in libertarian theory.

  23. Andy

    Oh, interestingly enough, Liberland actually BANS socialists, communists, and religious extremists from living there.

    Also, I corresponded with one of the people behind the Libertad project (private libertarian city concept currently being worked on in Norway), and I explained my Libertarian Zone concept and immigration policy to them, and they said that they agreed with me.

  24. Tony From Long Island

    It just makes my day when Andy ignores a question from me that he can’t answer. He’s so quick to oppose everything I say that I painted himself into a corner.

  25. paulie

    Nobody actually lives in liberland so they can ban whoever they want. If a few people want to get together and 100% of them agree on it they can form whatever kind of community they want, from a communist one to a free market anarchist one. They have that right if no one is forced to participate, anyone can leave easily at any time (at least after they are old enough to leave), and everyone that is there at the start personally agrees to the rules as does everyone who comes in later. That’s a lot different than a nation state, where many people never agreed to the rules to begin with and most people are born into them, and where leaving is a very difficult and disruptive process. Furthermore, the right to leave becomes meaningless if you can’t go anywhere. Then what you have is literally a prison planet made up of different level security wards.

  26. Andy

    I am going to use Disneyland and Disney World as an example for a moment (this is not the best example, because Disney has received tax payer funding, but places like Disneyland and Disney World could still exist without the state).

    Disneyland and Disney World have an “immigration” policy. People have to purchase tickets, and pay for rooms (if they are staying at Disney, and in addition to hotels, Disney actually does have condos and even houses where people can live). and agree to abide by the rules of Disneyland/Disney World if they enter Disneyland/Disney World. People who sneak in without paying, or who pay, but violate Disney’s terms once inside their parks, can face ejection by Disney security, and since we have a government that has a police force, Disney security could call the police to back them up to help get rid of someone who sneaked in or or violated Disney’s terms of conduct.

    Now let’s say that Disneyland and Disney World became seceded from the USA and became their own countries. Now does Disneyland and Disney World lose the right to set admittance policies, and to eject people who sneak in or who otherwise violate the terms of Disneyland and Disney World? Remember, at this point, Disneyland and Disney World are now nation states, they are no longer under the US government, they have declared themselves a sovereign nation, and for sake of discussion, let’s say that the US government actually did not prevent them from seceding and forming the nations of Disneyland and Disney World.

    I can’t imagine that anyone who calls themselves a libertarian would object to the idea of a private property Disneyland and Disney World inside the jurisdiction of a nation state being able to set admittance policies, and eject people who sneak in and/or who otherwise violate their policies of conduct. However, if Disneyland and Disney World were to secede from the USA and become their own nation states, some of these same “libertarians” would now claim that the nations of Disneyland and Disney World should have “open borders” and that they would be ____________ (insert nasty sounding word) if the nation states of Disneyland and Disney World set a policy for immigration that did not allow for just anyone entering.

  27. paulie

    We’ve already addressed the difference between actual private property and regime borders. Disneyland has a lot more rights as a property owner than just who is allowed in and out. You want the US regime to have all those same rights over the whole country? How and why did they become the property owner of everyone else’s property in the entire part of the continent they consider to be their turf? Thought experiments where individual property owners secede to form their own country don’t scale to nation-states acting as if the whole country is their property.

  28. Andy

    Under my Disneyland and Disney World secede from the USA and become their own nation states, the Disney board of directors become the new government. Disney security are now Disney police and military. People who live at Disney resorts become Disney citizens. Let’s say that as Disney citizens, they can vote in Disney elections. The property lines around Disney now become national borders. The places where you enter Disney and buy tickets become border checkpoints. Let’s say that Disney is a coercive state, like every other nation state on the planet, it is not a libertarian zone (like I proposed above), but it does have a Disney Constitution that is supposed to guarantee some rights for Disney citizens, much like the constitutions of other nations, like the USA. Citizens of Disneyland and Disney World can run for political office, vote in elections, and they can petition the Disney government.

  29. paulie

    Nope, still fails. They started out as one concrete piece of property. That’s not the same as a nation state where many property owners were never asked and got included to begin with just because of where they lived. If China conquered the US tomorrow, would that make the Chinese regime the legitimate owners of all property in this country? If your answer is yes, then your whole theory of property boils down to “might makes right.”

  30. paulie

    Additionally, whenever you find that a chunk of your day is spent putting forward “libertarian” arguments on behalf of collective central planning (say, of who can enter a large portion of the country) based on collective treatment of people based on their race, ethnicity or religion, you just aren’t having a good day.

  31. dL

    LOL. yeah, I only meant earlier today in this same thread. I’m not pretending to be some original thinker who just made an earth-shattering breakthrough in libertarian theory.

    I wasn’t disparaging your answer. And you don’t need to be some brilliant thinker addressing the issue b//c you’re dealing with school boy nonsense like this:

    https://twitter.com/BobMurphyEcon/status/744007424844062720

    these arguments always stem w/ the assumption that a some group of property owners is going to behave like a state. Of course, in the case of Bob Murphy, the US Mexican border is 2000 miles, so it is going to be a bit more than 12 property owners who are going have effective control over the US Mexican border. More like 10 ^ 5 on that contiguous 2000 mile stretch. And what can you conclude from that RE: unanimity of purpose. Not a goddam thing b/c there wouldn’t be any.

  32. paulie

    nonsense like this:

    https://twitter.com/BobMurphyEcon/status/744007424844062720

    Nifty map. Notice how on the US side you have individuals but on the Mexican side it’s one undifferentiated mass. Shouldn’t there be a bunch of individual names on both sides of what is today the border? And if that’s the case why would one assume that the border which would be enforced would be the one we have now? If Luis and Joe are neighbors and they want to visit each other, their other neighbors Bob and Frank should have zero to say about it. If Luis’s sons Felipe and Marco want to go work for Joe and Joe wants to hire them, Bob and Frank should once again butt out. If Joe has money and wants to buy some pot from Luis, or trade it for guns… guess what … And someone living 2,000 miles away? Forget about it.

    It’s funny how some people want to twist logic into tangled pretzels trying to find a libertarian justification for collectivist bigotry.

  33. Just Some Random Guy

    Finally, why is the LP falling for the liberal talking-point that this is a Muslim ban? Are we going to start calling anyone who disagrees with us “racists” as well?

    Where does it refer to it as a Muslim ban? The only place the word “ban” is used in the announcement is when it says “We will speak out against travel and immigration bans.” The announcement does say “New executive orders have barred entry of people from 7 countries that are mostly Muslim” but unless someone is going to claim those countries are not mostly Muslim I do not see what is inaccurate about the statement.

    It’s true the post on IPR is tagged with “Muslim ban” but that is nowhere to be found in the original announcement or even the IPR article itself.

  34. dL

    This is NOT a valid argument at all. Food, guns, drugs, etc…, do not vote in elections and do not collect welfare.

    Yes, a bag of doritos doesn’t vote but “food doesn’t vote” as an objection suggests that the bag of doritos would meet the intellectual threshold for voting if Andy’s brain likewise qualifies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *