Well, most fuedal nations were wholly privately owned by the ruling family. Now just picture said ruling family is a mix of objectivist and libertarian mindset. ;)

Domes on Mars. Just throwin' that out there. ;)

Only out west of the original thirteen however.

Under that argument Christianity is not a religion as it isn't referred to by Christians as the "Church of Christianity".

It is a system of belief in a deity and has rules on behavior, a belief in the afterlife, and a coming day of judgment. That is a religion. It is organized, has a holy city, and scriptures and prayers. It is an organized religion.

I know, we as a society like to think religion is about being good, but not all are. It is the cognitive dissonance of being confronted with a religion that is so different from the modern versions of Christianity and Judaism which leads us to not want to consider it a religion. But the adjustment is in understanding not all religions are minor variations of the same. That is the proper path to removing the dissonance, not redefining words.

If modern Christians were transported to the Middle Ages and the Catholic Church of that era they'd be mortified at what it was. After all ...
The Inquisition, what a show!

Their writings indicate they did in fact view it as a religion. Not one they liked, considered rational, or even sane, but a religion they considered it nonetheless.

Nor is it quick.

I would only stipulate that the objective evidence available indicates the vast majority of the Muslim world does not share the extremist positions and viewpoints. Christians of nearly every sect pick and choose what portions of the bible to adhere to, thus it should be no surprise members of the Islam religion do as well. As such I have to disagree that requiring one to disavow their religion in attempt to identify extremists among the religion is counterproductive. Acting like a Christian or at least acting like a non-terrorist is easy. Especially when motivated, and your mission or success of your beliefs are dependent upon it.

Yeah, silly autocorrect. :/

Whilst I oppose religious rule of any stripe, and the non-extremists need to do a better job at conmbating their extremists factions' ideologies, tarring the many with the the actions of the few is in my view a form of collectivism.

I think that the Gulch has people of many different views, but almost all are familiar with Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I think it's wrong to assume they are objectivists. I know I don't agree with everything espoused by 'objectivists' (or any other group), including open borders.

If any single issue, or several issues, will deter you from selecting a candidate, then I do not think anyone, at any time, will ever satisfy you. To me, when considering a candidate, one must consider the overall view. And Bernie Sanders ain't it, Neither is any establishment candidate. Which leaves us with Rand Paul. And, to keep on topic, given not only the security issues but the disease issue Germany is reporting (well hidden from US readers) of serious illnesses such as TB and worse, there is a lot of merit in what Rand says.

Well said! +1. May I repost your remarks?

That's a good idea and worth trying to achieve. The space habitats in Schulman's The Rainbow Cadenza are a somewhat more thought-out version of it.

I'm thinking, though, that any such proposed new state should be pretty small (as the Gulch was and as most primitive tribes were). This is primarily because most versions of libertarianism would rely heavily, if not entirely, on the mechanism of reputation in order to stop fraud and some kinds of theft -- and reputation stops working once you live in a society large enough that you can effectively disappear, at will, without losing your possessions or your lifestyle to do it. I'm thinking any "Gulch" should be limited to around 150 families. If it gets bigger it should split itself.

This would imply some sort of federation in order to produce a state large enough to be capable of defending itself in the modern world.

There are two ways of looking at it. The first is that Midas Mulligan took the place of a Medieval Lord and that everyone in the valley were his vassals subject to the rules he determined -- it was private property after all.

Or, alternatively, that Midas Mulligan set up the rules for the operation of what was essentially a country given that he had, by virtue of owning the property, the right to direct it's use. That once this was done the inhabitants could, subject to his 'constitution' determine their own rules.

If the former, it's not a very attractive place, and the latter a country.

Yes, it was. This code of conduct took the place of the sort of law that legislatures write. It was, of course, absurdly simple. Don't forget, though: that society did have a judge.

But wasn't it still privately owned property with some rules of conduct for people to be invited on the property? Kind of like when you invite people into your home?

Hello, t-a,
I think that your statement hinges on who are "potential enemies". In evaluating prospective immigrants, it is critical to find an optimized way of identifying the potential enemies, before they are allowed the residency. Can it be done? I would think yes. It is costly, though.

Hello, TheRealBill,
I think that it is important to point out that speech, which can be understood as an action, was explicitly protected by the FF. I think the importance if this is particularly evident in current atmosphere in our country.

Thank you for an excellent and thoughtful post, RealBill. I agree with what you have said (though I hope that you meant "piracy" instead of "privacy"...?). I am definitely amongst those who do not equate the Muslim religion with Evil. That does not excuse the Muslim terrorists who use their current interpretation of that religion as a scaffolding for repression, ignorance and destruction.

Jan

Very true. Which would mean in that sort of country one land owner would not be able to restrict another land owner from inviting anyone they choose to their property for any reason (excluding criminal criteria).
There is no collective "right" of the cultural, religious, or racial majority to restrict those who are different from them from seeking employment from their neighbors who do not have the same hang ups.

Please clarify the difference. I thought having at least a respect and understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy was a prerequisite here... Or am I mistaken?

Regardless of which particular mysticism the founders had in mind when writing about religious freedom, the point is that they all agreed that an individual had the inalienable right to choose their religion (or lack there of) without ANY sort of preference, prevention, or punishment from government. That is called a principle. What you are espousing is simply forcing one's own narrow views and preferences on there through the strong arm of government.

Brilliantly said.

Regardless of the early more limited experience with Muslims in the 18th century, the principle that government is not to favor or obstruct religious beliefs applies to all all of them. The First Amendment did not discriminate. Christianity has and was given no favored position. (The mistake was in limiting the First Amendment ban on interference in religion instead of all ideas without regard to religion.)

The question before us now, however, is not about religion as such, and not the First Amendment, but the anti-American ideology and zealotry of non-citizens seeking to exploit, infiltrate and destroy us. The First Amendment does not and should not prevent us from identifying the ideology of enemies of the country and keeping them out. Muslims from the mideast would have to demonstrate that they don't take their religion seriously, for the same reason that Ben Carson (properly) said he could not support a Muslim as president of the US. We have no obligation to take in swarms of refugees, whether legitimate or not, because of their "need" and regardless to the threat to our country. With the terrorism, wars, and spread of Islam in its ideological war against civilization as such, it has never been more important to recognize the importance of ideas and their consequences, and act accordingly on all fronts. Floating abstractions claiming "freedom of religion" on behalf of "refugees" -- such as the recent demagoguery from the Obama who hates the 'tea party' far more than he opposes Islamo fascism -- are not an excuse to sacrifice us.

Very well put. (Morocco was French and France was our first ally.)
However, modern Islam and the consequent jihad being waged in the world today has evolved out of the Muslim Brotherhood which was organized in the 1920's.
They have brought a return of the primitive to the Middle East...and the FF would definitely have resisted any return to the primitive.
The FF would never invite any potential enemy to establish a foothold that would lead to the demise of our country.

The question now is: Will our integrity be used against us to take our nation down because we won't say "no" to a potential threat because the First Ammendment guarantees that we obey our own rules instead of thinking this through?