There has been an application recently for the creation of a 1200 student Islamic school in Camden, on the outskirts of Sydney. The LDP is a strong supporter of school choice and diversity, and so we are pleased to see this example of more competition in the school market.
However, some other people aren’t as impressed. Up to 1000 people met yesterday to protest against the idea, fearing that the school will bring violence and make Camden “look dirty”. One resident said that “the thought of our beautiful Camden accommodating to this religion is a disgrace”. Christian Democrat candidate Godwin Goh agreed that local people didn’t want the school and complained that the school might propagate extremist views.
The LDP absolutely rejects these bigoted attitudes and defends the rights of parents and community groups to form private schools. So long as they meet minimum standards and offer a pathway to university, new schools should not be rejected.
Quranic society spokesman Jeremy Bingham was diplomatic in his response. He noted that the new school would not discriminate against non-Muslims and praised Australia as “very varied and able to accommodate all mixes”.
November 19, 2007 at 7:42 am |
If you are truly interested in democracy, why is it then you support a project that goes against the wishes of the community? If this issue were put to a vote, the majority of Camden residents would reject it, clearly you do not believe in democracy.
November 19, 2007 at 8:02 am |
Yep. At least if you define democracy as unlimited majority rule. The freedom to do what you want on your own property outweighs the publics democratic right to stop you. If 51% of the population vote to execute the other 49% and take their stuff, that’s democracy too. Put me down for not believing in it. If your majority of population don’t want the school, buy the land and don’t build the school on it. Otherwise, get over it.
November 19, 2007 at 8:19 am |
So yeah…. what exactly was wrong with the name “libertarian party” again?
November 19, 2007 at 8:35 am |
The URL was taken.
November 19, 2007 at 8:56 am |
Democracy as used in the name LDP does not mean unlimited majority rule. It means we wish to defend and strengthen our system of government. That system being one by which government is accountable to the people and one in which we are governed by the rule of law. The party name clearly puts liberty before democracy. Democracy should serve and conserve liberty. The word democracy also articulates the means by which the LDP wishes to bring about change.
The Muslim schools issue and the inference within the comment by Darrin Hodges (nothing personal) illustrates the way in which the word democracy is being routinely abused in the name of promoting majoritarian tyranny.
November 19, 2007 at 9:16 am |
Darrin,
I can’t agree that you can vote me out of my property. What if we vote to take the shirt off your back?
What if a intolerant group votes that women don’t have rights?
Democracy is great but liberal, republican democracy with checks and balances and invioable private (meaning one’s own body as well) property is better, paticularly for the vulnerable. It benefits the independent middle class and waelthy elite in society as well as it is more conducive to commerce. Everyone benefits.
If we take your concept of unlimited democracy to the previous stage, what if the sale to the Muslim group was subject to approval from the community? Or any other sale, commcercial action or private decision? This is a slippery slope we are best in avoiding altogether.
Perhaps democracy needs reinterpretation in respect of the goal of liberty. Each person should have the power to make decisions for themselves, regain sovereignty over their own lives. As a society we will choose elections as a peaceful and imperfect but fair way of reviewing, appointing and dismissing the Government which mostly stays out of our lives except for defending our rights and property from external threats and internal violence and damage.
I think that works better Darrin. Do you want a committee running your life, or would you rather restrict democracy to the election of a new Governemnt as managers of our defence and justice system when the old management no longer performs?
November 19, 2007 at 10:54 am |
Unlimited democracy = two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
The best way to coordinate humans is letting them be free and interacting peacefully and voluntarily. This doesn’t require government, therefore it doesn’t require democracy.
Sometimes there is a need for government action (eg police, courts). In this case, if some people are going to have the extra power implicit in politics, then they should be elected democratically. The primary virtues of a democratic election is (1) peaceful transition of power; and (2) downward pressure on corruption.
Democracy is a good thing. But it is not perfect and it certainly is not better than freedom.
November 19, 2007 at 3:32 pm |
“If 51% of the population vote to execute the other 49% and take their stuff, that’s democracy too.”
Citizens cannot “vote” to take extra-legal actions against the others. A group of people may get together and “vote” to hang Mohammad, so it might be democratic internally but is operating outside of the law and due process and thus is unacceptable, unless outlawry was re-introduced. I’m supportive of having our judiciary elected to office and being subject to recall, as they are in some parts of the United State, making them accountable to the community.
“What if a intolerant group votes that women don’t have rights?”
You mean like Muslims?
“Perhaps democracy needs reinterpretation in respect of the goal of liberty. Each person should have the power to make decisions for themselves, regain sovereignty over their own lives. As a society we will choose elections as a peaceful and imperfect but fair way of reviewing, appointing and dismissing the Government which mostly stays out of our lives except for defending our rights and property from external threats and internal violence and damage.”
What your talking about here is the futher and destructive atomisation of society, every man for himself. The individual is not above the community and by extension, the state. If a community majority judge that something being introduced will have a negative impact, then they should have the right to reject it, whether it be a mosque or a McDonalds.
Muslims are using our hard won liberties and democracy in order to put themselves into a position where they can abolish the very same. They will use democracy to destroy democracy, you lot are simply helping the West commit suicide faster.
November 19, 2007 at 3:33 pm |
Terje, still banging on about tax, etc,etc ?
November 19, 2007 at 3:43 pm |
The community is not the State. Libertarians are very supportive of voluntary society, but we do not like coerced society.
You seem confused about the role of government. You need to ask yourself: is it the role of government (democratic or otherwise) to tell you how to use your private property? If you say “yes” then you don’t really believe in private property or individual liberty. If you believe that people should vote on how you use property, that philosophy is called “democratic socialism”. Socialism has a fairly poor track record.
You say that peope can’t vote to do something against the law. That is a meaningless comment. People can democratically elect a government which puts in a law that takes away people’s rights (eg 51% elect a government which expells the other 49%). Just because they changed the law first, doesn’t make it right.
November 19, 2007 at 4:05 pm |
Your ideas seem to be at odds with each other Darrin,
1. Citizens cannot “vote” to take extra-legal actions against the others.
2. If a community majority judge that something being introduced will have a negative impact, then they should have the right to reject it, whether it be a mosque or a McDonalds.
Unless you are proposing that we should radically change the laws and rights we have, and the way people are allowed to make decisions with their “own” property – only with the consent of their community.
Constrained democracy protects exactly against the excesses of religious zealotry. By protecting individual decision making, we protect ourselves from any group that wants conformity on social issues and unquestionable authority.
But we already unfortunately are at a stage where people do not even own their own conscience – we have committees (at least appointed by democratic representatives) deciding what speech is correct etc. These processes have been used to suppress anti-Muslim firebrands. Taking away individual decision making removes dissent. Support of liberal, republican democratic processes and individual rights, property rights and decision making does not help anyone who wants to end western civil liberties. Because they are western civil liberties and have been since 1688.
November 19, 2007 at 8:01 pm |
No nation is held together by belief in ideas such as liberty or democracy. Nations are held together by people who share a bond, a trust, a kinship.
Muslims, and other foreigners with enough numbers to assert their identity, may not give a hoot about liberty and democracry when their baby-booms take over this country.
What this means is that we all must then decide which side we are on. No just what ideas we believe in.
Unfettered democracy will just give you a demographic jihad, as the Muslims are outbreeding us about 6 babies to our 2. You’ll have some pretty isolated, insular, sharia-run enclaves that nobody will dare go near. Each generation of Aussies will be engaged in continual white-flight, until there are no more places to run (like Europe now).
If y’all think a Muslim community will be peaceful, then you’re bucking the trend bigtime. Australia, if it has half a brain (which it may not) cannot risk a growing Muslim population.
The single most important issue of our time is stopping Muslim immigration, and then the containment of their demographic jihad (AKA baby boom).
Sooner or later, you or your children will be forced to choose sides.
If you doubt this, ask why millions of Turks (a 99% Muslim nation) rallied in the streets at the prospect of an Islamist president …
Onur Oymen of the secularist Republican People’s Party recently denied that the secularist ralliers represented “moderate Islam.” He declared: “You can’t have democracy without secularism. The notion of moderate Islam to check radical Islam is nonsense. This idea being promoted by certain countries should be abandoned.”
Ask the experienced, not the learned.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/22/can-turkey-resist-islamification/
The Turkey Paradox – Muslim and Islamophobic
http://australiatomorrow.blogspot.com/
November 19, 2007 at 8:04 pm |
You seem to confusing individual private property with property owned by an incorporated entity. The land on which the school in Camden is to go is owned by a incorporated entity, not a private individual. Mcdonalds is an incorporated entity, not a private individual. Both institutions would have a negative effect on Camden, culturally and socially.
There is no need to ‘radically’ change the laws, only that the town planning instruments accept “social impact statements” or “Cultural impact statements” in the way they currently accept “environmental impact statements”. Development of private property (owned by an individual) is already well covered by current planning laws which allows input from adjoining property owners.
“Constrained democracy protects exactly against the excesses of religious zealotry. By protecting individual decision making, we protect ourselves from any group that wants conformity on social issues and unquestionable authority.”
It won’t protect us if those institutions are being infiltrated by people who would seek to dismantle them.
November 19, 2007 at 8:37 pm |
Darrin — property owned by incorporated entities is still private. We defend the right of people to get together and form companies, and we defend the rights of any company (McDonalds or other) to do what they want with what they own so long as they are peaceful and act voluntarily. We are proud to be a capitalist political party. We don’t believe the government should get involved in the activities of companies.
There is nothing inherent in Muslims that would make them bad citizens and the LDP does not believe in discriminating against people on the basis of religion. We support a high level of non-discriminatory immigration and equal rights for all Muslims in Australia… including the right to use their own property as they see fit. This includes Muslims who get together to form a company.
Michael fears the impact of new immigrants on our democracy. That is a reasonable fear. The LDP takes a liberal approach in allowing people to live and work in Australia, but we take one of the strictest approaches in granting citizenship rights (with the consequent right to vote and right to welfare). By slowing down the change in our voting population we can allow time for new entrants to adjust to the Australian way of life before they impact on our democratic system.
But more importantly, the LDP believes in small government. With a big government it matters very much who wins the elections because they have the power to control your lives. With a small government this matters less as you always have control over most of your life. That means you can choose to only associate with non-Muslims if you prefer, or even to form a voluntary non-Muslim association or community… so long as it’s on private land.
November 19, 2007 at 9:10 pm |
Darrin,
Why shouldn’t I be able to sell my land (even as an individual) to say a Muslim school trust or a Mc Donald’s franchisee because it offends you?
You are proposing to take away my rights over that property – if the new purchaser can’t use it, they won’t buy it. Effectively, I no longer control it. You are proposing a basic form of communism.
How does this defend our rights and when has it ever been part of Anglo heritage – refer to the source documents outlining the rights of the English – e.g Magna Carta and Petition of Right. These documents have always protected individuals from arbitrary interference with property.
November 19, 2007 at 9:36 pm |
Terje, I don’t think the name suggests Liberalism is more important than Democracy. LDP is a name used in many countries, and the original intended name was Liberal Democratic Party, which doesn’t suggest Liberalism is more important than Democracy, at least not the way I read it.
But that’s just a semantic argument, I agree that mob rule isn’t an ideal for any of us.
November 19, 2007 at 10:40 pm |
“There is nothing inherent in Muslims that would make them bad citizens and the LDP does not believe in discriminating against people on the basis of religion. We support a high level of non-discriminatory immigration and equal rights for all Muslims in Australia… including the right to use their own property as they see fit. This includes Muslims who get together to form a company.”
This is the “head-in-the-sand” thinking that has Europe all but doomed by demographic Jihad as Michael described. You clearly do not have the least understanding of Islam or its agenda.
November 19, 2007 at 10:42 pm |
“Why shouldn’t I be able to sell my land (even as an individual) to say a Muslim school trust or a Mc Donald’s franchisee because it offends you?”
Europeans do not have the ethnic solidarity that Muslims (and others have). That is why you’ll sell your land to the Muslims. We’re not talking about ‘control’ of private property in as much as citizens will understand whats best for their local community (and by extension the state) and make decisions on that basis.
November 19, 2007 at 11:48 pm |
Darrin,
John talked about Muslims being good citizens not about the ideas of Islam being good ideas. Europes problems don’t stem primarily from allowing Muslims to immigrate there. They stem from defending or hiding the indefensible in the name of cultural sensitivity. They stem from bloated welfare states that make economic and social integration optional. They stem from refusing to confront stupid ideas through open and vigoureous dialogue and debate. In short Europes problems stem from an abandonment over many decades of the core notions of classical liberalism not from the ethnicity or religious background of its immigrants.
If you have read much in the way of writing from the LDP you should know that we don’t spend too much time dwelling on cultural sensitivities. Nobody here is trying to mount a defense of shariah law. We are not advocating the mistakes of Europe. We are merely defending the idea that property rights should have universal application irrespective of your religion and that the specfic use of property is a matter for the owner of that property.
Regards,
Terje.
November 20, 2007 at 12:01 am |
Michael,
Nations are held together by notions of kinship. However those notions need not entail tribe or religion or race or cultural heritage. Primarily they may entail other notions of identity which is why flags and nationalistic symbols are popular tools in nation building. And certain ideals such as liberty can act as a unifying form of shared identity. However nations are said to be “forged” by experiences, most often by shared hardships. Australians of different origins are said to have forged a shared national identity during WWI. There is no need to assume that this process is not ongoing today.
Regards,
Terje.
November 20, 2007 at 12:32 am |
Terje:
“Nations are held together by notions of kinship. However those notions need not entail tribe or religion or race or cultural heritage.”
But supposing this kinship does entail ‘tribe’ or race or so on? I’m half Polish. After centuries of slavery Poland regained her independence in the 20th century but there was still a great deal of ethnic strife. After WWII Poland was left 98% Polish. Poland is an ethnostate. I think that the overwhelming majority of Poles want Poland to remain an ethnostate- which means restricting the freedom of non-Poles to immigrate to Poland.
Suppose that Mexicans and Kenyans and Arabs were allowed to move to Poland and made ethnic Poles a minority.
Suppose they and their children ended up assimilating and made good citizens (I’ll confess to being less than optimistic about that).
Suppose they lived more prosperous lives than they would have if they’d remained in their own countries.
Suppose they had shared experiences and ended up forging a new Polish identity.
I’d still be against it. A nation is more than an economy or an airport longue, defined only by who happens to be in it at a given moment. It wouldn’t be the Poland my family had fought for.
November 20, 2007 at 1:22 am |
“I’d still be against it”
Nick I think it may mean you are not a hard core libertarian:)
However will you admit that countries like Poland, Japan and Israel are a bit different from the US, Canada and Australia?
November 20, 2007 at 4:53 am |
Terje Petersen Says: Europes problems don’t stem primarily from allowing Muslims to immigrate there.
Earth to Terje, Earth to Terje. France, Sweden, Italy, Spain (for starters) are all losing their unique and formerly free cultures because of massive Muslim immigration.
… and yes I read all of your post and agree that what you said is correct in theory. But stopping muslim immigration will assist in turning around the root causes of cultural decay. Put simply, Australians don’t want their culture destroyed by islam.
November 20, 2007 at 6:10 am |
As far as I understand it, a large part of Spain’s culture is Muslim, going back to the Moors from around the tenth century.
November 20, 2007 at 6:20 am |
Deep Green,
Have you read our immigration policy?
Regards,
Terje.
November 20, 2007 at 7:44 am |
“As far as I understand it, a large part of Spain’s culture is Muslim, going back to the Moors from around the tenth century.”
Yep, because the Muslims invaded Spain and had 800 ( or so ) year party.
“However those notions need not entail tribe or religion or race or cultural heritage. Primarily they may entail other notions of identity which is why flags and nationalistic symbols are popular tools in nation building.”
This folks is called “civic nationalism” and assumes that our institutions, created primarily by Europeans, will be continued by non-Europeans. If a nations ethnicity is changed, so will these underlying institutions. You guys sound like you just can’t wait for the end of Western civilisation.
November 20, 2007 at 7:46 am |
“However will you admit that countries like Poland, Japan and Israel are a bit different from the US, Canada and Australia?”
They are, because they have retained their ethnic identity ( against the prevailing attitudes elsewhere) and haven’t tried to dilute it through mass immigration like the US, Canada and Australia.
November 20, 2007 at 8:00 am |
Bukhari Hadith – Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”
November 20, 2007 at 9:33 am |
deep green: perhaps you should compare the amount of anti-liberty legislation enacted by the European parliament and each nation in Europe since the end of WW II or the Cold War (a lot) to how much legislation has been passed by each ethnicity (none). The damage was done before the immigrants turned up. France has 20% youth unempoloyment but the US, Canada and Australia absorb hundereds of thousands if not millions of immigrants each year. Over time, each set of immigrants becomes middle class and integrated. Why doesn’t that happen in Europe?
Can you define what Australian culture is if it is decaying?
Darrin – English and British institutions have always been carried out by new settlers or ivnaders. You keep on pressing the importance of the heritage of our laws and customs, but won’t give any credence to the rights outlined in the Petition of Right (1627) which made private porperty an institution that English (in turn, Welsh and Irish) and Scots law defended from arbitrary interference. But you claim we need this interference to protect our rights.
Australia, Canada and the US, which have historical roots in immigration, have rejected the will of the Japanese, Poles and Israelis to be or to remain as ethnostates?
You are proposing a very odd form of democracy. It’s not enough for local communities to respect private property and go along with the prevailing feeling of the whole country, the country has to go with the prevailing feeling of other countries that it wants less interaction with.
Australia never had a single ethnic identity even in pre European times so it is a very odd thing to defend. You haven’t shown why it would make us freer, since in doing so we would break many principles of English common law that our western, liberal values derive from.
November 20, 2007 at 9:53 am |
“The damage was done before the immigrants turned up. France has 20% youth unempoloyment but the US, Canada and Australia absorb hundereds of thousands if not millions of immigrants each year. Over time, each set of immigrants becomes middle class and integrated. Why doesn’t that happen in Europe?”
“Malmø, Sweden. The police now publicly admit what many Scandinavians have known for a long time: They no longer control the situation in the nations’s third largest city. It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants. Some of the Muslims have lived in the area of Rosengård, Malmø, for twenty years, and still don’t know how to read or write Swedish. Ambulance personnel are attacked by stones or weapons, and refuse to help anybody in the area without police escort. The immigrants also spit at them when they come to help. Recently, an Albanian youth was stabbed by an Arab, and was left bleeding to death on the ground while the ambulance waited for the police to arrive. The police themselves hesitate to enter parts of their own city unless they have several patrols, and need to have guards to watch their cars, otherwise they will be vandalized. “Something drastic has to be done, or much more blood will be spilled” says one of the locals.”
There is no concept of liberty or democracy within Islam, it seeks to control every aspect of a believers life and how a believe interacts with others. The examples you have cited:
“outlined in the Petition of Right (1627) which made private porperty an institution that English (in turn, Welsh and Irish) and Scots law defended from arbitrary interference. But you claim we need this interference to protect our rights.”
were developed by Europeans for Europeans. If we do not defend ourselves from the predations of Islam, then Malmo will become our future. As far as I’m concerned, LDP promotes civic nationalism and with its blind adherence to promoting liberty at all costs, even at the cost of liberty itself, means that ultimately the LDP is promoting the Islamisation of the West.
A vote for the LDP is a vote for Islam.
November 20, 2007 at 10:18 am |
“(And, of course, if you are Australian and you too are sick of the depredations of government, then you know who to vote for in the coming election.)”
http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/
If the Muslims support the LDP, then it can only be a bad thing.
November 20, 2007 at 2:14 pm |
I’m an Atheist and totally opposed to the idea of religious rule. But that includes Christian rule. I don’t assign any value to Christian or Western values. Personally I think that no national value is inherently better than another. Personally, I like Australian city culture and values. But I find sport uninteresting, I don’t particularly like Australian (read British) cuisine. I also don’t like some of the prevailing notions in rural parts of Australia and I hate the arrogance of some Australians. There was a guy I knew in Launceston that once said, “Tasmania’s the best place in the world. I’ve never left it and I never need to.”
Well, I’ve been to Japan, Korea South-East Asia and USA. There’s plenty Australia could gain from any of these countries. There’s aspects of all of these countries that I wish was adopted here at home. And there’s aspects of Australian culture that I wish would be adopted over there.
I don’t mind if Australian values change. I don’t mind what religion people are. As long as the government doesn’t force anything onto me. Because I’ll decide for myself what I think is right, moral or true.
November 20, 2007 at 2:16 pm |
It is absurd to quote examples of violence by Muslims and conclude that Islam causes violence. It is also absurd to quote scripture in an attempt to show Islam causes violence. I can show examples of Christian violence and genocidal Christian scripture too. It proves nothing.
The multicultural west is richer, safer & has a better standard of living than anywhere else on earth and in history. It is true that this is largely because of our liberal heritage… which has always included private property rights & liberal immigration. We should not abandon this winning formula.
I understand that some people (Darrin, Nick, Pauline etc) prefer their own race or religion and want to personally discriminate against other races & religions. That is unfortunate and dissapointing, but that is also your right to discriminate with your own property. However, it is not appropriate to use the government to make sure that your neighbours are the “correct” ethnicity. Property rights and freedom are more important than your racial, religious or cultural biases.
Finally, I am extremely proud to have the support of Amir and to have the LDP loudly defend the equal rights of Muslim Australians. Ironically, Amir (a Muslim) would defend the rights and freedoms of Darrin/Nick etc, but they (non-Muslims) want to deprive Amir of his. Who is following the western liberal philosophy? We would be lucky in Australia to have more people like Amir.
November 20, 2007 at 2:25 pm |
Well said Shem. Personally, I much prefer to live in a country with racial, religious and cultural diversity. It makes life so much more interesting. And cultures are always changing so it’s absurd to try and protect it from influence.
Of course, I won’t force Nick to eat Chinese food, or force Darrin to watch a French movie, or force Michael to have an Indian friend. Likewise, they should not try to force their preferences on me.
November 20, 2007 at 3:34 pm |
Malmo is but a small sample. You only have to look at the U.K, France, Denmark (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2328814.ece), Germany, Brussels, but it doesn’t matter to you people, you are extremists. Anybody who thinks that multiculturalism has made the West safer is deluded or has some other agenda.
November 20, 2007 at 4:25 pm |
Boris- of course, Australia’s not an ethnostate or anything remotely like it. Australia’s circumstances are different.
John- I have no desire to discriminate against anyone – fully 40% of my friends must be Chinese alone and I’ve known and liked people from just about every race on earth. I think that Darrin’s a crank. I welcome Muslims who want to join the party, and I personally support the party’s immigration policy. I’ll defend Amir’s rights just as much as I’ll defend anyone’s. I have no desire to discriminate against people because of their race or religion.
November 20, 2007 at 4:31 pm |
Nick — glad to hear it. Sorry if I misrepresented your views regarding Australia. I think the same liberal system would be good for Poland too… but perhaps that’s a debate for a different day.
November 20, 2007 at 5:00 pm |
I’ll play the devil’s advocate. Darrin’s fears are based on some truths and half-truths. What is the libertarian answer to these questions?
1. What actions should a liberal democracy take to protect itself from immigration that does not value liberal democratic ideals or is not able to live by liberal democratic values? Islamic values generally do not support (and, in fact, often oppose) democracy, capitalism, individualism, personal freedom, tolerance, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. Elected Muslim MPs from the predominantly Muslim areas in the UK have publicly declared that democracy is a failed system and that when there is a Muslim majority the goal will be to leave liberal democracy and move towards a form of Muslim political rule. Muslims have openly and violently opposed liberal democratic values in Western countries such as Denmark with the Mohammed cartoons, and in The Netherlands with the murders of a politician (Pim Fortuyn) and a film maker (Theo Van Gogh). The fact is Amir is the exception, not the rule. Should a liberal democracy take action to limit these threats to liberal democratic values, and if so, how should they do it?
2. The reality is that the basic values of liberal democracy are usually protected by a government. A government always is considered as appointed by the citizens of a nation within certain national borders. There is a level of contradiction within libertarian thought in that libertarians propose to open the borders, but believe in the absolute nature of certain civil values to be upheld without question by the citizens within those borders. Clearly there are other value systems in the world outside liberal democratic borders! Wouldn’t an open borders approach expect some of the ‘other value systems’ to come into the liberal democracy? Considering this, shouldn’t the existing citizens have a right to say who should enter those borders in order to protect these values that they hold so dear? If there is some disagreement as to who is allowed in i.e. who is to be given citizenship, shouldn’t this be decided through a liberal democratic process. In other words, shouldn’t new citizens require the general approval of the majority of the current citizens? If we look at Muslim immigration we can see that a large section of the Australian community does not feel that they are the best option for our immigration needs. In the name of democracy shouldn’t we look to take immigrants that have the broad approval of the majority of the community? Wouldn’t this have other benefits within the community?
November 20, 2007 at 5:28 pm |
Pim Fortuyn was killed by athiest animal rights extremists, not Muslims. Perhaps we need to cut back on the number of athiests?
Islam does not necessariliy lead to any of the things you said. It is true that many Muslims believe what you wrote… but that also applies for some Christians, some Buddhists, etc. It would make no sense to ban Amir and let in Robert Mugabe (a christian). The danger is socialism. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Islamic socialism, national socialism, agrarian socialism, indusrial socialism etc.
But even if we remove the unnecessary “Muslim” qualifier… the issue you raise is still important. How do we prevent a massive influx of new people using and abusing political power and undermining freedom. One solution is to fight for a small government so that political power is less important. Another solution the LDP has is to be liberal with regards to people movement, but strict when it comes to giving voting rights.
November 20, 2007 at 6:33 pm |
John you are largely right about many Christians being similar to Muslims in their attitude to liberty. But the truth is, most “Christians” in Australia and the West are secularists, while the vast majority of “Mulsims” are strongly religious. So even without bringing the comparison between Islam and Christianity, we can already expect different average attitudes towards liberty.
November 20, 2007 at 8:19 pm |
The reality is that Darrin keeps giving examples of countries whose problems are caused by a gigantic welfare state.
The problem isn’t allowing muslims into their country.
Their problem is a cradle-to-grave welfare system and extremely high tax system that discourage the most valuable immigrants (hard working skilled workers, professionals and business owners) and encourage the least valuable (welfare deadbeats).
Just as with any religion, there are desirable Muslims and there are undesirable Muslims. The trick is to design a welfare and immigration system that will attract the kind of people you want, not to apply a blanket ban to a certain religion.
Australia doesn’t need people who are going to move here with their large families and collect welfare for the next 25 years regardless of their race or religion. But that is unfortunately what has happened in France and most of Europe, because of their overly socialist economic policies.
Socialist policies that, incidentally, Darrin would like to emulate.
November 20, 2007 at 9:07 pm |
Exactly.
I agree there are problems with Muslim minorities in Europe but, for the most part, this is the fault of the welfare state and rigid labour markets rather than anything intrinsic to the religion or their race. In France, for example, the labour policies ensure that minorities are kept excluded from the labour market and there is very little job creation/turnover. The devil, as they say, makes work for idle hands so it’s not surprising that you end up with all sorts of social and other problems amongst those groups that are excluded.
America, by way of contrast, has a very large Muslim population but very few problems. This is, to a large extent, because people are forced to sink or swim based on their own merit and willingness to work. If you want to survive, you have to work; and if you want to work then it stands to reason you need to behave in a socially acceptable way and not espouse extremist or anti-social ideas. It’s the dole that allows people to say whatever they want and do whatever they want with impunity because no matter how crazy they are, there is never any social or economic cost to be paid for their actions.
November 20, 2007 at 10:49 pm |
I love your attitude, Amir. Any country, people or culture that ever achieved greatness did so because of that attitude.
November 20, 2007 at 11:31 pm |
Muslims that immigrate can change us, but it is often forgotten that Australia can and does change them. For many, it teaches them the success of liberal democracy, women’s rights and other values.\
The only real threat is if we allow an excessive level of immigration without letting existing immigrants integrate, which I don’t think is a problem yet, especially with the Australians born from immigrant parents going to a typical school and being integrated through the education system.
November 20, 2007 at 11:59 pm |
It’s the dole that allows people to say whatever they want and do whatever they want with impunity because no matter how crazy they are, there is never any social or economic cost to be paid for their actions.
Amir, I have sympathy for this view. What do you think of the $9000 “guaranteed adequate income” the LDP would offer to all adult citizens?
November 21, 2007 at 12:32 am |
Both Sam and Amir suggest (or imply) that the hard working, professional and enterprenerial people are more likely to embrace liberty in all its forms. I do not necessarily see it that way, especially with deeply religious people, be it Muslims, Evaneglical Christians (in the US), or Orthodox Jews. It is an almost Marxist approach to the problem (being determines the mindset) that does not always work.
November 21, 2007 at 6:16 am |
JohnZ, given the fact that under LDP policy first generation immigrants would seldom become citizens and hence seldom be eligable for welfare I think there’d be less of a chance of an ethnic welfare ghetto developing.
November 21, 2007 at 9:30 am |
Boris
Interesting that you cite Orthodox Jews – my impression is they rarely get involved in politics (except perhaps when it comes to foreign policy about Israel). They may live a traditionalist lifestyle and don’t choose to embrace liberal mores themselves but so what? They don’t need to personally embrace western liberty as long as they don’t impose their views on others. Perhaps a better example is groups like the Amish – I’ve never yet heard of an Amish party that supported the abolition of cars and modern technology.