thumper

If they have a search warrant, sure.

Here's what I'm driving at though. I'm not a fan of Islam. In fact, I think it's pretty repugnant. Is it then, possible for me to make a moral judgment to say, based on my personal preference, that Islam, either as a nation, community, or even neighborhood has no right to exist?

IsItJustMe

Well, I think that it's important in answering whether X has a right to exist as a nation to set out what the rules are that you're using. You can't have one set of rules for one group and another set for another. You can't make important decisions arbitrarily. That's just basically and profoundly unfair. So the question is who gets to decide they're a separate nation and who doesn't, or how do we determine that. Now, I've given you my answer.

Frankly I think it's silly to say that I can declare my house sovereign. And on a city-wide basis there are very complicated issues of fairness concerning the surrounding area, dissenters within the city, etc. And my set of principles is, in my opinion, the best way of deciding the case.

If you disagree with my set of principles, what set of principles do you propose?

IsItJustMe

Maybe this question, building on what you said about Islam, will help to illustrate my point.

Let us suppose that there is a neighborhood in Leeds where the majority are Muslim... Say, 60%. And let us suppose that these Muslims decide they want to secede from England and set up an Islamic caliphate in their neighborhood. Now, the other 40% are not what you would say down with this plan. In fact, they're horrified at the idea. But the Muslims go ahead, and they hold a vote, and win it, and then they send a guy to a public square to read a proclamation and raise a flag.

Does this mean the English police have to stop coming into this corner of Leeds? I think not, according to the test I laid out above. What do you think, and why?

thumper

Whoever said democracy was a factor in this? This is an individual thing.

IsItJustMe

This is what I mean, Thumper. I asked a perfectly reasonable question designed to help shed some light on the debate. I spent some time on it, in hopes that it would really add something. And you replied with one line of text that didn't even clearly respond to what I said. That's really annoying. It's the reason I usually ignore you.

thumper

I just don't understand that part about the voting.

People should only have powers over the property they own. Libertarianism (self-determination) is not democracy. That's all I meant. So in your hypothetical situation, the only people living under the caliphate would the be ones who wanted to (the muslims).

IsItJustMe

So you are saying that any person who owns real property (i.e. land, and not a car, or a sofa) can decide what nation his land is in simply by declaring it part of one nation and not part of another. Is this right? Please give me a straight answer. Please.

thumper

Yes. Isn't that the nature of private property in the first place?

IsItJustMe

I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

No. That is, I cannot think of a single historical period in which it was held to be so. It is a little known fact, but the nature of property rights change over time. For instance, in Medieval England it wasn't even really possible to own land. You could only "hold it in fief" from your lord, and then you got to use it in return for rent, military duties, and very possibly a chicken at Christmas. In some parts of Mexico today land cannot even be individually owned. This is called the ejido system.

Now, you take an absolutist view of political principles. You say, "X is the way it is because of some absolute principle." This is a form of philosophical idealism.

I on the other hand take a practical approach. My view is that laws exist for people, that they are human creations and should be kept alive so long as they serve human purposes and no longer. In this respect I really do agree with the Declaration of Independence where it says:

So, for me, the practical problems of your approach preclude following it.

For instance, it means that any person who has committed a crime and owns his own house can escape prosecution simply by going there, declaring himself a sovereign nation, and refusing all requests for extradition. That's just for starters.

thumper

I'm arguing for what 'ought' to be not for what 'is'.

As for the crime issue, I thought I already went over this. Law still exists.