We have a rule at my home; no living creature not specifically authorized for entrance is allowed in our house. Mice, snakes, spiders and insects are all forbidden entry and if caught or discovered, are killed. Within the immediate area of the house, within 100 yards, any poisonous or dangerous creature, (rattlers, copperheads, black widow spiders, etc.) are also immediately dispatched upon discovery. Beyond our immediate curtilage, we adopt a live and let live policy. If our plentiful population of timber rattlers and copperheads don't attack us, we leave them alone to help the blacksnakes and other less dangerous predators keep the mice and other vermin down to a manageable level. (I have been told anecdotally that the 'Warning! Rattlesnake breeding area!" signs do inhibit the local methheads from trespassing...)
After one episode early in our tenure here at Liberty Hollow, when I discovered how quickly rattlesnakes can move when stung by a near miss, we keep snake shot "upfront" in our personal defense arms during warm weather, we wear appropriate clothing and boots, and we keep a wary eye out at all times. While we are willing to tolerate their presence on our property, we also know that it is useless to try to reason with a copperhead bent on aggression; the snake is simply responding according to its nature.
As a Libertarian, I am generally inclined to tolerate a very wide variety of behaviour from other humans, as long as they allow me to live my life as I choose, don't try to force me to adopt their viewpoint or beliefs and respect the foundations of advanced civilization- the rights to life, liberty and property.
But toleration is not acceptance. Far too many people on all sides of this issue conflate those two. In particular, the fact that I am willing to tolerate religious freedom does not mean that I accept someone else's religion, nor that am I willing to tolerate rape, murder, or misogyny. Believe as you wish, celebrate whatever faith you desire, but the moment that anybody initiates force against an innocent for whatever reason, they are become uncivilized barbaric savages who have forfeited by their own action any rights they might otherwise have possessed. At its root, this is a binary solution set; either one believes in individual rights for everyone and respects them, or one does not. Any sapient being who is not willing to allow others their otherness and respect their rights has forfeited any claim on his own.
When I attended the University of Virginia, many years ago, there was a simple honor code. One did not lie, cheat, or steal, or TOLERATE ANYBODY WHO DID. The sanction was simple; if you were found guilty of a violation of the standards of conduct, you were expelled from the University. As a result, one could leave their possessions in the library, go eat lunch with friends, and come back hours later to find your expensive textbooks left unmolested exactly where you had left them. More anon.
John Robb, of "Global Guerillas" has posted an interesting article about the latest Islamist outrage, link here. Robb postulates that in declaring war on Islam, that France has fallen into a Red Queen trap. This is only true within a certain context, however; one in which the bulk of the people are disarmed, in which people are not allowed to shun or dis-associate others, and in which France will continue to tacitly allow the Islamization of France. There is a better way.
I submit that the proper strategy for France in dealing with their Islamist problem is four-fold-
- Allow individual citizens to own and carry weapons without permit, let or hindrance, and encourage and promote the carrying of personal arms. Dead jihadis are a sanitation issue, not a menace to civilization.
- Enforce and uphold the tenets of individual right; any attempt to establish Sharia law or otherwise depart from the rule of law should result in immediate arrest, prosecution and swift punishment.
- If the offender is not a French native, after their sentence has been carried out, whether it be hard labor or what have you, then they ought to be stripped of their residence rights and deported.
- Lastly, France ought to legalize freedom of association. Freedom of association means more that simply being able to choose your friends; it also means that one can choose who NOT to deal with. The resultant shunning of militant Islam would be instructive. If Muslims are unable to buy, sell, trade, get a taxi or telephone service, or obtain any of the fruits of civilization, they may rethink their adherence to a barbaric faith which strikes at the philosophical basis for all of these things, or they might relocate back to the uncivilized cesspools which spawned them. Either would be a win.
I think that adoption of this strategy would be effective, and would avoid the blowback and escalation inherent in another 'war of terror.' While anyone who respects individual rights may be obliged to tolerate a loathsome belief system, there is not a whit of reason that one must tolerate loathsome behaviour, and we ought not do so. I am not Charlie, for I do not intend to die unarmed at the hands of barbaric savages, nor should any other person.
With regard to all who serve the Light,