//You’re doing that conflating thing again, ie Islamic terrorists are motivated by religion, Christianity is a religion, therefore Christianity is equivalent to Islamic terrorism. Faulty logic, again.//

No, I am conflating Christian authoritarianism with Islamic authoritarianism, and as forms of authoritarianism, they are both abhorrent. It is not faulty logic at all, in any way, because my point is that I do not agree with any form of restrictions of freedom, be it motivated by Christian beliefs, Muslim beliefs, Communist beliefs, or whatever. So, I was using the example of Islam to show that I understand that I could be wrong about many things, but that does not mean I will support the state to restrict liberty. And I was using Islam, because you yourself find it abhorrent, and I was attempting to show that as you find Islamic authoritarianism disgusting, so I find your authoritarianism abhorrent. Do you understand now?

Let me turn the question back on you,
You must also take into account the possibility that the Islamic fundamentalist and Sharia law imposers world view is correct and that your concept of right and wrong, fair and unfair etc has been corrupted by the fall and your own sinfulness, slewing your judgeent on these matters so drastically that you are unable to accept the facts. It’s possible, surely?

//You see what I mean about the ridiculously convoluted arguments required to keep this nonsense afloat? Really, just read what you have written and ask yourself if that is a good reason to come out with Nazi-like sentiments such as ‘I find it acceptable to execute the child for its theft.’//

Not convoluted. The argument extends logically for its premise. It shows respect to individuals property rights, and, more generally, body rights.

//In the Libertarian world //…you would be able to worship whatever God you wanted, live how you wanted, spend your money how you wanted, and be comfortable in the certain knowledge that anyone that stole, injured or killed you would face justice, say whatever you want, express yourself however you want. You would be able to engage in whatever mutual consenting arrangements that you wished, however, you would not get help from the state if you failed. You would be able to trade with who you wanted, and defend yourself with lethal force if necessary. Charities would take centre stage as the primary welfare provider, meaning that no force would be involved in one human helping another – and it is very likely that the degree of selfless giving and assistance would increase, because it feels good to help fellow humans. We would have an army that would defend this land vigorously, and not get involved in foreign conflicts, and we would have a population capable of fighting in the streets and hills were we to be invaded. Yes, that sounds like a land I would be very happy to live in.

//I’ll finish (really this time) on this.//

And, once again, I thank you for taking the time to converse with me.

We were at war with Germany, so all Germans had to go. Those who would have obvious problems (German Jews) were interned. Those of other nationalities, including English, who showed sympathy for the enemy (Nazis, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc) were also arrested, some imprisoned, some shot. When an ideology covers more than one nationality, as Naziism did and Islam does, all sympathisers should go. English, German, French, Pakistani, Afghan, whatever.

‘//You must also take into account the possibility that my world view is correct and that your concept of right and wrong, fair and unfair etc has been corrupted by the fall and your own sinfulness, slewing your judgment on these matters so drastically that you are unable to accept the facts. It’s possible, surely?//
It is possible, certainly. It is also possible that the Islamists are correct, and that the terrorists who flew the planes into the towers have gone to paradise, that Allah is God, and Muhammed is his Prophet, that it is correct to slaughter apostates. However, I do not see myself admitting they are correct any time soon.’

You’re doing that conflating thing again, ie Islamic terrorists are motivated by religion, Christianity is a religion, therefore Christianity is equivalent to Islamic terrorism. Faulty logic, again.

‘To show you the level to which I take this, let us imagine that I was grafted into your circulatory system. I am still as I am now, I just rely on you to provide me with nutrients via your blood. In 9 months I will be able to separate and leave your body. You have consented to let me part of your body. You are the only one that can support me. Even in those circumstances, you would have the right to revoke consent, and, if there were no other way of separating me from you, it would be your right to kill me. I would beg and reason with you to let me stay, (which for the unborn child is a role that is taken up by concerned adults) but ultimately it would be your right to evict me from your body, even if it meant my certain death.’

You see what I mean about the ridiculously convoluted arguments required to keep this nonsense afloat? Really, just read what you have written and ask yourself if that is a good reason to come out with Nazi-like sentiments such as ‘I find it acceptable to execute the child for its theft.’

The rest of your post if repetitious of earlier posts. I’ll finish (really this time) on this. In the Libertarian world you describe, people will be free to execute children for theft, amputate the limbs of shoplifters until they bleed to death, fatally poison burglars with saline, have sex with anybody who consents and hang the consequenses, including the children that are conceived. Countries will be left open to outside invasion and internal unrest because you value the ‘rights’ of potential (and actual) terrorists more highly than the life of your own sister, Christianity will be relegated to some quaint, aboriginal-like ancient custom and replaced with the worship of self above all else, except perhaps the money that you so vehemently begrudge being spent on anybody or anything else but yourself. Utterly selfish and brazenly so, as though it were something to be proud of. What a sad product of modern society you are.

Libertarianism is not a new concept, it started in a garden, thousands of years ago. Back then it was simply called rebellion.

//When we were at war with Germany, we removed the Germans. Were we at war with France, I would say ‘remove the French’. We are at war with Islam (you might have noticed, but not everybody has) and so I say ‘remove all muslims’. I am unconcerned as to their colour or nationality. I did not hold up the IRA as an example of garbage government (although they are), I compared their belief system to that of the muslims and think we should meet violence against the State with extreme measures, immediately, not surrender to them.//

But, my point was to demonstrate that it is not right to punish innocent people on the basis of a collective, and that there are many examples where it is unjust and morally wrong to do so. Why is it correct to remove all Germans, when not all Germans are Nazis? Why should we punish all Muslims, when not all Muslims are Islamists? I cite the evidence of the German resistance to show that it is wrong to judge all Germans by the standard of the Nazis. So I do not understand why you think it is ethical to do so. Indeed, you say that you do not care about the colour or nationality of Muslims, but you do think it was a good idea to evict all Germans, on the basis of an ideology, Nazism. If you were to apply the same rules to the past, as you do now, surely you should be saying that one should only judge by an ideology (Nazism), rather than a nationality (German). Why do you consider nationality relevant in one example, but not the other? And, would it not be reasonable to say that we were not at war with the Germans, but rather with the Nazis, who were German and Austrian?

//The State has no duty to punish sin, that is God’s job. They do, however, have a duty to punish crime (which is different to sin, although some sins are also crimes), maintain order and protect it’s citizens from all aggressors, foreign and domestic.//

Yes, by protecting the freedoms of their citizens, not restricting them.

//In other words, saying that government A is unacceptable because it is unfair to unbelievers is the same as saying government B is unacceptable because it is unfair to believers.//

Not really, as a liberal society is one in which a religious or non-religious person can live as they wish, provided they do not limit the freedom of someone else. There is no right for a religious person to live in a society dominated by religious laws, nor is there a right for a non-religious person to live in a society where the state persecutes religion. In short, the fairest society is one that persecutes neither religious nor non-religious people, but allows each of them to live their own way. Of course, one could make an argument that by denying a theocrat from subjugating a heathen population, you are denying them their right to exercise their religion. However, I would argue that there is no such right to subjugate other people.

//You must also take into account the possibility that my world view is correct and that your concept of right and wrong, fair and unfair etc has been corrupted by the fall and your own sinfulness, slewing your judgment on these matters so drastically that you are unable to accept the facts. It’s possible, surely?//

It is possible, certainly. It is also possible that the Islamists are correct, and that the terrorists who flew the planes into the towers have gone to paradise, that Allah is God, and Muhammed is his Prophet, that it is correct to slaughter apostates. However, I do not see myself admitting they are correct any time soon.

//You think an unwanted, unborn child is a thief; you find it acceptable to execute the child for it’s theft, ergo: you think a suitable punishment for theft is execution. I was not talking about whether or not a shoplifter refused to leave the premises, or a burglar your house. The methods of execution given by myself are the methods used to kill babies in so called ‘terminations’. If you think it acceptable to execute a baby for ‘theft’, by removing it’s arms and legs until it bleeds to death or dies of toxic shock from saline overdose, you must think that this is also perfectly reasonable to do this to people who steal food from Tesco’s because they are hungry.//

I find it acceptable to execute the child for its theft, if there are no other immediate alternatives. And yes, if there is no other way of killing them, I would permit the methods you describe. However, the most humane way of killing should be used. This does not, of itself, rule out abortion, merely certain methods of abortion. The reason why I favour the guillotine is because it is relatively quick, yet creates enough of a gory spectacle to act as a dramatic deterrent to criminals.

To show you the level to which I take this, let us imagine that I was grafted into your circulatory system. I am still as I am now, I just rely on you to provide me with nutrients via your blood. In 9 months I will be able to separate and leave your body. You have consented to let me part of your body. You are the only one that can support me. Even in those circumstances, you would have the right to revoke consent, and, if there were no other way of separating me from you, it would be your right to kill me. I would beg and reason with you to let me stay, (which for the unborn child is a role that is taken up by concerned adults) but ultimately it would be your right to evict me from your body, even if it meant my certain death.

//BTW, the baby is not refusing to ‘leave the premises’. Give him a few more months and he’ll go of his own accord. If the mother really is so heartless as to not want him, I’ll have him, as would countless thousands of others.//

Yes, but again, it is not his place to set the time scale of his leaving. That is like giving the thief in the shop the choice about when they can leave! ‘You want me to stop stealing now? Sorry that simply isn’t convenient for me, but I will leave in three months, in a process that will produce exquisite agony, and may kill you. Is that okay with you?’. Does not seem convincing.

//The mother of an unborn child consents to it’s presence the moment she has sex without contraception. It is not libertarian to allow a person to kill to escape their responsibilities, regardless of who is paying for it. //

But consent must be explicit, as in acknowledged and recognised. An obligation cannot be placed upon someone without their express consent. You would agree that people engage in sex without thinking through all the consequences?

//We disagree on most things. I accept that I am used to being ignored, disbelieved, ridiculed. I think you will experience the same things for your views on life but the vital difference is that I am right. //

Afraid not, I am right. And, the libertarian movement is gaining ground in many countries. So, I do not think I will be ignored.

There are many areas of argument in your recent post where you answer questions I have not asked with answers that seem to settle things, but not the point in question, ie. The German resistance. I am aware of the good German people who resisted the Third Reich, but we were not discussing Germans in Germany, we were discussing Germans in the UK. Fish and fowl, Sir. Another example is your conflation of nationality with religion or political philosophy. I do not say remove all Pakistanis (which would include Johanna Lumley and Cliff Richard), I do not say remove Indians (George Orwell) I say remove all those who are followers of a creed (Islam) so alien AND so harmful to peace and prosperity (how many muslim countries would you like to live in?) that it is utterly incompatible with Western Values, Religion and Society. When we were at war with Germany, we removed the Germans. Were we at war with France, I would say ‘remove the French’. We are at war with Islam (you might have noticed, but not everybody has) and so I say ‘remove all muslims’. I am unconcerned as to their colour or nationality. I did not hold up the IRA as an example of garbage government (although they are), I compared their belief system to that of the muslims and think we should meet violence against the State with extreme measures, immediately, not surrender to them.

The State has no duty to punish sin, that is God’s job. They do, however, have a duty to punish crime (which is different to sin, although some sins are also crimes), maintain order and protect it’s citizens from all aggressors, foreign and domestic.

Your argument against Theocracy is weak (The Bible does not teach that Christians should attempt to institute one and I do not argue for one, I am merely highlighting what I believe to be a fault in your argument) and, if reversed, would be an equally weak argument in favour. In other words, saying that government A is unacceptable because it is unfair to unbelievers is the same as saying government B is unacceptable because it is unfair to believers. You must also take into account the possibility that my world view is correct and that your concept of right and wrong, fair and unfair etc has been corrupted by the fall and your own sinfulness, slewing your judgment on these matters so drastically that you are unable to accept the facts. It’s possible, surely?

The shoplifter analogy is another example of you either being confused as to my point or answering a point not raised by myself. You think an unwanted, unborn child is a thief; you find it acceptable to execute the child for it’s theft, ergo: you think a suitable punishment for theft is execution. I was not talking about whether or not a shoplifter refused to leave the premises, or a burglar your house. The methods of execution given by myself are the methods used to kill babies in so called ‘terminations’. If you think it acceptable to execute a baby for ‘theft’, by removing it’s arms and legs until it bleeds to death or dies of toxic shock from saline overdose, you must think that this is also perfectly reasonable to do this to people who steal food from Tesco’s because they are hungry. BTW, the baby is not refusing to ‘leave the premises’. Give him a few more months and he’ll go of his own accord. If the mother really is so heartless as to not want him, I’ll have him, as would countless thousands of others.

The mother of an unborn child consents to it’s presence the moment she has sex without contraception. It is not libertarian to allow a person to kill to escape their responsibilities, regardless of who is paying for it.

We disagree on most things. I accept that I am used to being ignored, disbelieved, ridiculed. I think you will experience the same things for your views on life but the vital difference is that I am right.

I know of other Christians that disagree with that viewpoint. Forgive me for believing that you were one of those kind of Christians. Do you therefore, believe the state has a duty to punish sin?

//You seem to think that if one part of your argument, no matter how small, can be proved wrong, it shows an inherent flaw in all of it and therefore the whole thing is wrong. That is why you will defend and reason the indefensible and the unreasonable, to try to protect the whole of your argument. I do not think that the general principle of Libertarianism is entirely wrong, I think that it omits the freedoms which belong to God by right and it extends it’s principles way past the point of common sense. It then invents convoluted scenarios ands couches them in intellectual language and ‘Hey Presto’, a new philosophy is born. //

Not really. I am quite flexible on the issue of abortion – there are many Libertarians that are opposed to that, so I have a lot of time for those kind of arguments. The problem with saying that it omits freedoms which belong to God, is that not everyone believes that God wants the same thing, or they believe in a different God, or no Gods. Therefore, to make laws based upon what one particular conception of God wants, is to restrict the freedom of the individual on the basis of something that they do not believe – it is, almost, a form of theocracy.

//BTW, you will not be allowed an SA80 (they’re rubbish anyway, the AK is a far superior guerrilla weapon), the government will not allow the little people assault rifles, probably because if enough people had them they would march on Parliament.//

I know. Another undermining of individual rights and liberty. However, if the Muslims do try and take over, it is likely that guns will become more readily available. The AK is okay, but the SA85 is used by the Royal Marines, fires more rounds per second, and can be equipped to take a grenade launcher – that what I want on my side in a gun fight!

//That it did not make sense to treat all Germans as individuals during war with those people has been proven correct by history. //

What about this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance

I do not believe in demonising people on the basis of their nationality. It is rather like saying that all British people are lager swilling louts – it simply is not true.

//In my mind, Warsi is an apostate, she wants the victim culture status that goes along with Islam (notice the Baroness bit at the front of her name, earned through doing and being NOTHING more than a woman and a muslim) but cannot be bothered with the praying and fasting and all the other nonsenses that Islam imposes on it’s followers.//

I am inclined to agree with your assessment of why she is where she is. I suppose it depends how much courage she has.

//Please, open your eyes, it has already happened, there is already a precedent for this, that has happened within your own lifetime.//

I have! That is why I am a libertarian, and want a radically different form of government. I am not arguing in support of the current shower of shite, but in support of freedom. I have as much disgust at these ex-IRA people as you do, and would gladly see them punished for their violence. However, because we do not have a libertarian government or state, that is not happening.

//You want people who become sick from drug abuse to feel the full weight of their own stupidity, to receive no assistance from the state, what they put in their body is entirely their own business, as are the consequences. But you do not extend the logic to this argument on abortion, because it conflicts. That the woman has chosen to introduce something into her body which results in consequences she would rather not have to face seems entirely the same scenario as the drug user, yet you have different solution.//

There is no conflict. I do not want the state to help drug addicts, to use taxes to help them. I have no qualms about charities, or individuals supporting drug addicts, or helping them change. That is what voluntary, mutual consent is all about. With abortion, the same rules apply. People (in this case a doctor and a pregnant women) should be able to engage in whatever mutually consenting arrangement that pleases them. So there is no conflict between saying that the state should not interfere through threat of violence, in the affairs of drug addicts, and that the state should not interfere through threat of violence, in the affairs of pregnant women.

//You did not answer my previous question; Who is more innocent than an unborn child?//

Sorry for not answering. Well, I have said that I think that unborn children are taking from their mother, without consent, so they are not innocent in the sense of not violating another persons rights.

//Should we amputate the limbs of shoplifters until they bleed to death, or inject with concentrated salt-water//

No, however, there are alternative in those cases. The shoplifter can be removed from the shop, and imprisoned – they can be stopped from stealing by non-lethal methods. However, unborn children cannot – that was my point about alternative uteruses that could be used to move unwanted babies to. However, were it the case that a shoplifter could not be removed from a shop without death being the consequence, then yes, I would consider it justifiable to execute them – much as I think it permissible to kill a thief or intruder in your house, provided they do not try and leave. It is a form of self-defence.

Incidentally, let us not forget that babies also cause women / mothers, great pain during child-birth, even running the risk of death. So it is like theft, but also like GBH.

And, I have already said I do not think abortion is correct or right, merely that it should not be illegal.

As a Christian (you might need to change what you think that word means when applied to people like me) I do not believe Man has intrinsic human rights afforded him by other men. They are worthless things that can be revoked at any time. I believe that there are God-given rights, these are entirely different but they are also entirely conditional. God is an Authoritarian, He does as He chooses, when He chooses, and if He offers a deal to mankind (He already has) that they could do X in exchange for Y, and they choose to reject His offer, man is at the mercy of other men and indeed the Devil. God’s attitude (I think so anyway) is one of ‘Get with the program’. Failure to do so leads to misery.

You seem to think that if one part of your argument, no matter how small, can be proved wrong, it shows an inherent flaw in all of it and therefore the whole thing is wrong. That is why you will defend and reason the indefensible and the unreasonable, to try to protect the whole of your argument. I do not think that the general principle of Libertarianism is entirely wrong, I think that it omits the freedoms which belong to God by right and it extends it’s principles way past the point of common sense. It then invents convoluted scenarios ands couches them in intellectual language and ‘Hey Presto’, a new philosophy is born.

That it did not make sense to treat all Germans as individuals during war with those people has been proven correct by history. That it does not make sense to treat all muslims as individuals will, I very much fear, be proven right by not too distant future events. BTW, you will not be allowed an SA80 (they’re rubbish anyway, the AK is a far superior guerrilla weapon), the government will not allow the little people assault rifles, probably because if enough people had them they would march on Parliament.

When Baroness Warsi is forced to choose, as I believe all will have to soon; are you with us, the muslims, or with them, the kaffir? What will she choose? There may be a few persons in a similar position who will not conform, but they will be few and far between. In my mind, Warsi is an apostate, she wants the victim culture status that goes along with Islam (notice the Baroness bit at the front of her name, earned through doing and being NOTHING more than a woman and a muslim) but cannot be bothered with the praying and fasting and all the other nonsenses that Islam imposes on it’s followers. I’m sure that such a craven opportunist as Warsi will suddenly find her ‘faith’ re-invigorated, just about the same time she is offered the choice between a Burkha or a bullet.

That the MC of GB even exists is a sickening disgrace. Still, this is same government that allowed the mass-murderers Adams and Mcguiness to become Ministers of State and millionaires, fed taxes from the people they were killing, the same people they are now leading. Please, open your eyes, it has already happened, there is already a precedent for this, that has happened within your own lifetime. The difference this time is that the muslims will not be as entirely ‘reasonable!’ as the IRA, they will not be satisfied with ‘Power Sharing’, they want it all and what we will not give, they will take.

I do not believe that, except in the case of the mentally retarded, people who engage in sex nowadays do not realise that it can result in pregnancy. If they do not want a child, they could refrain from having sex, the man could use a condom, the female any number of methods and systems of contraception. These people seem to view a child that results from sex as an inconvenient side-effect of their pleasure, to be disposed of as one would dispose of some meat that had passed it’s sell by date. Your argument for abortion is an example of the convoluted arguments required to keep your house of cards intact. You want people who become sick from drug abuse to feel the full weight of their own stupidity, to receive no assistance from the state, what they put in their body is entirely their own business, as are the consequences. But you do not extend the logic to this argument on abortion, because it conflicts. That the woman has chosen to introduce something into her body which results in consequences she would rather not have to face seems entirely the same scenario as the drug user, yet you have different solution. You wish to alleviate her (and the man, because it obviously takes two to tango) of her consequences and responsibilities, by killing a child, because it is libertarian. In my book (The Bible), it is simply called murder. That you also seem to think that the punishment for theft (in your analogy of the child ’stealing’ nutrients from the mother) is death also seems to be extreme. Should we amputate the limbs of shoplifters until they bleed to death, or inject with concentrated salt-water, like so called ‘DR’s’ do when they murder babies that their feckless mothers do not want? You did not answer my previous question; Who is more innocent than an unborn child?

//I do not believe that terrorists have the same rights as non terrorists, nor criminals the same rights as the law-abiding. Society has decided over the centuries what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. We have a way of changing these decisions, if society decides they are no longer working. It’s called the rule of Law and process of changing the Law is Democracy. When a person commits a crime or a terrorist act, they are stepping outside of what society has decreed acceptable and so they lose some of their rights.//

They must do, otherwise what are “rights”? Are they just permission to engage in what society agrees to? Or are they intrinsic to the nature of human beings? If they are the former, then there can be no violation of human rights, in either Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Saudi Arabia, or modern day USA. So, the right to do as you wish, provided it does not hurt someone else, has with it, essentially, the right to punishment for violence committed against another human being, and that applies for everyone.

//Even you accept that person who murders loses the right not to be guillotined by the government. I just extend it further to say; ‘those who intend to commit certain crimes, or who give succour to those who do, lose their right to liberty or their right to reside in a nation which never supported their ideas when they first arrived and whose indigenous population still object to their ideas now’.//

Yes, and so does Saudi Arabia, but I do not think that theirs is an acceptable definition either.

//I agree that if a person wishes to smoke, that is their business. That is not the same thing as a person wanting to be a Nazi or a muslim. The latter impacts my life, the former does not. //

It does if the person gets lung cancer, and dies leaving their children to be raised without a family. Or if the child is exposed to the smoke and is sickly. My point about smoking was in relation to your prohibitionist attitude to drugs, not to Muslims.

//Now re-read the paragraph and substitute the words Nazi/Nazism for muslim/Islam and you’ll see my point. Nothing is new under the sun. The only thing that changes is the names, the hearts behind it all are always the same.//

If that were the case, then it would make sense to treat every Nazi individually. Indeed, former Nazis and former Tommys have now become friends.

//If you do the honourable thing, I wonder if this conversation will spring into your mind, a split second before the bullet of an AK 47 does and you crumple, face first, into the ditch that you were forced to dig, already half full of other ‘unbelievers’?//

Nah, I will be one of those holding an SA80 in the resistance. I am libertarian, and am therefore not afraid to defend my liberty against overt aggression.

//it is this very same minority that will be swept to power by the so called moderates if we carry on sticking our heads in the sand.//

But the moderates are unpopular with the extreme elements. See the recent abuse of Baroness Warsi, for not looking like a Muslim woman.

I have to agree with you, that the deafening silence from the Muslim Council of Britain, over things like Muslims shouting abuse at British soldiers, is quite sickening. A retraction of funding would be most beneficial.

//How libertarian is it to kill an entity that you yourself describe as human? The analogy of the unborn ’stealing’ from the mother is rather sick, but also poor. I cannot be accused of theft if a person has given me permission to enter their property and eat from their fridge. The child cannot be accused of theft of the nutrients and sustenance of the mother because she gave permission for the child to be there. That she regrets making such a deal does not allow her to kill the child, any more than the person who gave me permission to eat from his fridge has the right to shoot me when he realises I’m about to start on the smoked salmon and Moet et Chandon.//

//I too am pro choice. That choice is made when a couple choose to engage in ‘baby-making’. You have made eloquent arguments against the use of violence on the innocent. Who is more innocent than an unborn human infant?//

That is, at most, tacit consent. But we both know that consent must be overt. It is rather like the recent overtures to make organ donation the default, and to assume tacit consent. Consent has to be voluntary, and aware. When people have sex, they do not make the connection, they do not consent to having a child.

However, even saying that, if a woman had tried to become pregnant, deliberately and consciously, I would still support her right to abort the infant during the pregnancy, because permission can be revoked. It is rather like saying that someone who once gives permission to someone to sleep with them, automatically gives consent to any subsequent times, and therefore cannot be raped by that person. Permission to use a resource can be revoked. In your analogy, it would be like you changing your mind and asking the other person to not eat your food, they continuing to do so, you telling them, them still refusing to stop. It is then that physical violence becomes permissible.

Saying all that, I do not believe abortion is right. I just do not believe it is up to me to force a woman to have a child. As I said, were it possible to transfer the unborn into another uterus, that would mean that abortion could be made illegal.

But, this is an issue that libertarians are divided over.

There were very few (shamefully) German Jews present in the UK at the time of the declaration of war against Germany, because our then government disgracefully refused most of them asylum until much later in the war. Those that were present were interned. They wed fed, watered, allowed exercise and entertainment, visitors and pastimes. This was obviously not a pleasant experience, but almost all knew that they were being treated reasonably and the alternative, in a true authoritarian state, was infinitely worse. The reason for their detention was obvious; the British Government could not take the risk that some of them were 5th columnists, as some undoubtedly were. That the majority had to endure hard conditions because of the wickedness of the few was not the British Government’s fault, it was Hilter’s. All were released at the end of the war and most chose to stay here.

I do not believe that terrorists have the same rights as non terrorists, nor criminals the same rights as the law-abiding. Society has decided over the centuries what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. We have a way of changing these decisions, if society decides they are no longer working. It’s called the rule of Law and process of changing the Law is Democracy. When a person commits a crime or a terrorist act, they are stepping outside of what society has decreed acceptable and so they lose some of their rights. Even you accept that person who murders loses the right not to be guillotined by the government. I just extend it further to say; ‘those who intend to commit certain crimes, or who give succour to those who do, lose their right to liberty or their right to reside in a nation which never supported their ideas when they first arrived and whose indigenous population still object to their ideas now’.

I agree that if a person wishes to smoke, that is their business. That is not the same thing as a person wanting to be a Nazi or a muslim. The latter impacts my life, the former does not.

Can you think of any Nazis that did not want to commit mass-murder? I can think of many Muslims that so not want to blow up the infidel.

I think that most members of the Nazi party were unaware of the atrocities being carried out in the name of Nazism. The reports they did receive they considered enemy propaganda. They thought it a noble philosophy, one which would lead the world into a new age of enlightenment. one which would immeasurably benefit mankind. Sure, the dissenters would have to go, but it would be worth it in the end. They did not look too hard at their leaders, just in case, and anyway, who were the Imperial British to be giving lectures on world domination. Now re-read the paragraph and substitute the words Nazi/Nazism for muslim/Islam and you’ll see my point. Nothing is new under the sun. The only thing that changes is the names, the hearts behind it all are always the same.

//just like the most Germans did with Nazism//
I thought most Germans were forced into the Nazi Party when membership became compulsory?

They were not forced at gunpoint and not a small number were only too willing to join an organisation that told them that God was on their side and He wanted them to rule the world. Those that did not join, and openly opposed, were shot. After a few of these such shootings, those who were reticent or ambivalent suddenly developed a previously undiscovered fervour and ‘group-think’ took over. This is EXACTLY what will happen, is happening now, with Islam. I do not accept that there are only a tiny minority who wish us harm but even if it were true, it is this very same minority that will be swept to power by the so called moderates if we carry on sticking our heads in the sand. Then you will be forced to choose: Islam or death, kaffir? If you do the honourable thing, I wonder if this conversation will spring into your mind, a split second before the bullet of an AK 47 does and you crumple, face first, into the ditch that you were forced to dig, already half full of other ‘unbelievers’? Perhaps you will display the same passion for your apparent beliefs as G W Bush and convert, thus becoming the opposite of all you hold dear, and perhaps secretly longing for the old, illiberal days of Christians and Democracy?

How libertarian is it to kill an entity that you yourself describe as human? The analogy of the unborn ’stealing’ from the mother is rather sick, but also poor. I cannot be accused of theft if a person has given me permission to enter their property and eat from their fridge. The child cannot be accused of theft of the nutrients and sustenance of the mother because she gave permission for the child to be there. That she regrets making such a deal does not allow her to kill the child, any more than the person who gave me permission to eat from his fridge has the right to shoot me when he realises I’m about to start on the smoked salmon and Moet et Chandon.

I too am pro choice. That choice is made when a couple choose to engage in ‘baby-making’. You have made eloquent arguments against the use of violence on the innocent. Who is more innocent than an unborn human infant?

Why didn’t you say this at the start? It would have saved me some typing.

Anyway, if you do not reply, thank you for taking the time to communicate with me. You have got my little grey cells (cell?) working.