So long as coercion, i.e. the state, is not used to enforce proper behavior then rules about behavior would not be inherently anti-libertarian. Excommunication among the Catholics and shunning among the Amish, for example, are not really in conflict with Libertarianism. Libertarianism is not the same as libertinism. It’s certainly possible for very traditional Christians to be libertarians, see Lew Rockwell/ Thomas Woods/ Laurence Vance etc, so this whole idea that not wanting the government involved to regulate private acts means you approve of those private acts is wrong.

Re: The Ideal Libertarian State:

The ideal libertarian state would be no state at all. That’s the logical result if you take libertarianism far enough down the line. Everything would be provided for by the private market, including security.

The second best thing would be radical decentralization and an extremely limited system of government. Imagine a world filled with little Monacos or Luxembourgs.

“First and foremost, we have not seen it because pure Libertarianism is impossible. We are social animals; we work in groups, in clans. Our evolutionary path is much like other apes. Alone we ARE prey. We are hard-wired work in groups with other people. We are even hard wired to feel others pain. Even in the mostly egalitarian setting of the hunter-gatherers individuals must make concessions to the group to survive.”

You making the mistake of confusing ones local community with the state. It’s like confusing the US with the government of the US. Working in groups does not require government intrusion.

“(T)he gulf coast of the richest country in the world would have devolved into an underdeveloped landscape indistinguishable from Bangladesh.”

There have been other parts of the US that have been flooded and that have received much less attention and federal dollars and have recovered much quicker. There were worse hurricanes and floods before and people recovered and the affected areas did not end up looking like Bangladesh for years to come. And I doubt the Louisiana state government would have been to quick to mismanage levee funds if they thought the Feds weren’t going to help them.

“There’re two konds of liberatrianism, James: social and economic and- theoretically, at least- they need not be connected. ”

You can only separate libertarian into two camps and believe that the two can remain separate if you reject the notion that the axiom of non-aggression is the basis of libertarianism. That’s all libertarianism is; it’s immoral for an individual or a state to initiate violence and violence is only acceptable in defense. The people who got in libertarianism simply because they want to smoke pot or because they want to be accepted for having lifestyle choices that deviate from the norm don’t have a firm grasp on the matter.

On numerous matters, Libertarian ideas come close to the conclusions which had already been made by Islam over 1400 years ago. These include:

The inviolability of private property, which is totally accepted as natural under Islamic Law.

A true commodity currency based on the Gold Dinar and Silver Dirham, which avoids the inflation caused by Fiat paper-money.

Trade is regarded as the central practice in the economy. Indeed, it is mentioned throughout the Qur’an and played a pivotal role in early Islamic history.

Zakat is based on a charitable donation from the individual, so it is not coerced like taxation. Even the Jizya was often returned to the non-Muslim, as occurs in a famous story during the rule of Umar ibn al-Khattab (radiallahu anhu).

Rather than imposing a coercive moral or social standard on the individual, isolation (hijra) and social ostracism was often the preferable method, such as what occurs in the story about the three Sahaba who stayed home from the battle.

The rights of the religious minorities were accepted as inviolable. The Hadd punishments were only implemented upon those whose behavior was public. Slander is regarded as one of the major sins and there are strict rules that one must produce a certain number of witnesses.

The early Islamic state in Madina, followed by the righteous Khilafah of the Khulafa ar-Rashidun (Rightly-Guided Khalifas), was de-centralized and its primary function was to collect the Zakat and to defend or expand the boundaries of Dar al-Islam.

So there was much power given to the local communities, such that the profits from resources were given back to the local area.

Islam bestows much privacy to the individual. Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta’ala) makes distinction between sins committed in private or in public.

There was no historical precedence for the secret police or Mukhabarat in Khilafa, as the authorities did not invade the privacy of individuals to see if they were violating the Shari’a.

Wa Allahu A’lam.

think about some islamic issues:
*money earned legitimately / permissible => you have to earn through your own work to get something permissible (not with goverment’s money distribution policies through taxing)
stealing is one of the most unforgivable sin.
*offering / zekat = it is 1/40th of your annual income (not 1/2) its earler form of taxing in first islamic state.
*sin =it is personal, you cant share your sin with others or receive other peoples sins.

sorry about my english

I think the reason we don’t see many Muslim libertarians is simply because we as a collective whole as Muslims in the West don’t properly understand our current situation. We are confused.

At this moment, to even survive in this country, we need libertarian ideals which will protect and honor the First Amendment guarantees.

On the other hand, many Muslims who have not come to terms with this basic reality side with social conservatives because they agree with many of Islam’s stances on issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

However, I think we can compromise. In my opinion, as a Muslim, I don’t agree at all with homosexuality or abortion as a common practice ; BUT I differ in my application of that belief. If it were an Islamic state, things would be a lot different, but in a democratic society such as the US, everyone is free to do what they want so there is no room to stop anyone from doing what they want.

But after libertarianism and the ideas of individualism/natural rights are protected, then I think education and discussion is the best way to teach others about our ideas.

Finally, I must point out after reading some comments that I don’t see any contradiction between human sociability and libertarianism.

Libertarianism seeks to minimalize central power and hegemony while promoting the “WE” through state communities. Thus, people CAN and of course WILL be social, and libertarianism doesn’t say people can’t be.

Quick questions to you, or any one else who wants to answer them:

From a Muslim / Libertarian prospective what is to be done when someone violates core values of the faith?
If a Muslim gets drunk, or if they commit adultery? If they commit a homosexual act? Munch down on a lovely piece of pork Barbecue?

Is there such a thing from a Muslim perspective as a “victimless crime?”

What would be the position of religious minorities in Muslim Majority / Libertarian Amiristan?

What would be done with “apostates?”

Finally Amir, will you be a term-limited elected executive or dictator-for-life?

Very technically you are correct; we have never seen “pure” Libertarianism.

First and foremost, we have not seen it because pure Libertarianism is impossible. We are social animals; we work in groups, in clans. Our evolutionary path is much like other apes. Alone we ARE prey. We are hard-wired work in groups with other people. We are even hard wired to feel others pain. Even in the mostly egalitarian setting of the hunter-gatherers individuals must make concessions to the group to survive.

Libertarianism in its’ pure form ignores these social structures. It assumes that we are highly rational individuals who always work in our own self interests. Libertarianism ignores the complex social structures that we have built since the Agricultural revolution. It takes these structures for granted.

More to the point, Libertarianism ignores the fact that government is absolutely essential in protecting the “free market.” Left to its own devices, capitalism always ends up in a “Guided Age” scenario. While Monopoly, Colonial Mercantilism, and predatory Lassez Faire Capitalism might be no-no’s to good libertarians, how are you going to prevent these things without a government devoted to the common good?

Again it is all about We vs. Me. Libertarians are all about “Me” about selfishness, about hyper-individualism. This mind set ends up in warped and hellish societies. It ends up with a huge underclass living like slaves and a tiny minority of the hyper-rich and hyper powerful.

Libertarianism rejects the idea of the commons, of people working together to backstop each other. The end result of this idea can be seen in NOLA. Because the Bushies reject government, because they really believe that government is the enemy of the people they have left a major American city to rot in ruin. They have left the “reconstruction” to private, for-profit corporations.

The end result of this privatization is rampant corruption and cronyism. This is inevitable when you reject the idea of the public good. There is no public good in Libertarianism because there is no public, no commons, only individuals.

In insisting on the primacy of the individual, by insisting on private solutions Libertarianism actually subverts the rights of people. To fully flower people need to be secure. They need food, water, and secure lodgings. In modern post-industrial societies these things are provided by the government. In Oz, the society has determined that all citizens will have a secure floor under them. In Oz you are provided a sturdy social safety net. This is done as a matter of course. This is because you live in a we society, where the majority have agreed to certain items are the right of all Australians.

It is always mildly ironic to read of any Libertarian “scholarship” emanating from the “developed” nations. It is doubly ironic to hear of it coming from the Land of Oz. One has to be willfully ignorant of how the welfare state has aided your choice of occupation. One’s learning has been supported by public schools, one travels to school on public roads, the food one eats has been inspected by public servants, one is protected from crime by police, the building itself is protected by firefighters on the public payrolls. If the scholar gets sick he can go to a public treatment facility. Public water supplies guarantee that her next drink of water will be free of pathogens, public Libraries let him read about the great thinkers, public Universities let her develop her ideas even further and develop new ideas that can enhance the public good. In a Libertarian paradise there is a good chance these scholars would have ending up as field hands trying to scratch up an existence on the land.

It is an irony that the best way to protect individual liberty is by surrendering a bit of that liberty to government. By allowing government to intervene in our affairs, minority rights can be protected. Shiites and Sunnis live in relative harmony in the USA because the Constitution and laws of our republic are very clear on the limits of faith. The Muslims themselves are also protected from the Christian Crazies by those same laws. Left to there own devices the “Christian” majority in the USA would more than likely purge the Ummah from its midst with very little provocation.

Understanding the need for at least a civil libertarian ideology to protect the individual from society we must guard against going too far. The right to swing your arms, Eudaemonion, ends at my nose. Your right to have sex as you see fit is limited by the consent of your partner and common sense. Your right to get blotto on the drug of your choice ends the minute you pick up your car keys. No individual right is absolute.

Only by accepting the idea of the commons, of working for each other can we truly grow as individuals. If we only accept the Me and reject the We if society becomes a competition we end up very few winners and lots of losers. We have to find a balance between cooperation and competition. Libertarianism fails because it rejects the very idea of the group, of cooperation, of the commons. Ron Paul is the perfect example; he wants to dismantle social security and other social welfare programs. He is a Taft-Style isolationist. In short he is a total ideologue, his major beef with Bush is that Bush has left too much of the government standing. If he were president the scenes from the NOLA superdome would be even worse. President Ron Paul would have rejected any federal aide to the Gulf Coast. The Federal Government would have left the individual states and localities to there own devices. The gulf coast of the richest country in the world would have devolved into an underdeveloped landscape indistinguishable from Bangladesh. That is what happens when you buy into the Regan-Paul-Freidman ideology. That is what happens when you drink the Ayn Rand libertarian kool-aide®.