The Islamic State is something I hate and could never support.
But, not necessarily because it is Islamic- although I am not a fan of Islam.
The same would be true for a Christian State, a Jewish State, or an Atheist State.
I would oppose a Dog Lovers' State, a Football State, or a Coffee Drinkers' State.
And even a Libertarian State, or a "Free State".
The problem lies in declaring a State.
Creating a State around your idea- even if it's otherwise harmless or good- negates the harmlessness and good. A State is automatically a bad thing; built upon aggression, coercion, and theft.
I get it: people want to say "This area, defined by these boundaries, is different from those areas beyond these boundaries. This area is better than those areas for lots of reasons". And, they may even be somewhat right. But as soon as your area meets the definition of a State it has lost the moral high ground. You have trashed your idea, no matter how great it might have been to begin with.
- KentForLiberty- Home
- Zero Aggression
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Counterfeit "laws"
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Privacy & ID
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- My Job Search
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent