My point here is that a culture of trade mitigates a lot of social problems. People who otherwise would not get along, do, at least tolerate each other's existence. Look at New York City, Singapore, or any other cosmopolis.
If, by "culture of trade" he meant the political freedom to trade, he would be right. But that is just saying respect for individual rights makes possible trade and makes for a society that tolerates differences. It is important to understand this effect is the result of enforcing respect for individual rights, otherwise you can, and will get tyranny - and the size or location of the cosmopolis won't matter. Creating the environment where individual rights are the basis of law is the cause and a culture of trade is the effect. Putting the cart before the horse won't get the goods to market.
Marotta writes a little story about some Muslims from 1600 who didn't believe in killing infidels and respected women. What can that possibly have to do with the fact that Islamists today believe in killing non-believers and believe in things like honor killings? His fuzzy notion seems to be that "a culture of trade" creates a society of toleration... and that some kind of anarchy/pacifism regarding Islamism would be the proper answer... well, that is dangerously flawed 'thinking'.
When Mitt Romney ran for the Presidency as a Republican, no one here demanded that he denounce radical Mormons.
And radical Mormons are killing tens of thousands of people? Is this like some kind of conspiracy theory from the progressives? Are radical Mormons showing significant signs of working to take over our nation? (Sarcasm)
Today, here and now, millions of Americans who accept the tenets of Fundamentalist Christianity believe that Earth is only about 10,000 years old and that people and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously. That ignorance is the basis for laws here and now today that violate individual rights.
That is partly true. The religious Right pushes for laws that arise from their religious beliefs and when passed, those laws violate individual rights. But they also strongly oppose political correctness, the main engine of progressivism, which passes far, far more laws that violate individual rights. Why join the side of the argument that progressives favor? Political correctness is being implemented as a wide-ranging political, cultural and psychological form of control over thought and behavior.
In the wake of Charlottesville and Charleston, where were the demands here that the conservatives and Republicans openly denounce white nationalism?
That is a purely progressive talking point designed to do a Saul Alinsky kind of demonizing of all conservatives and Republicans as if they supported racism.
What I see in the original post is a special pleading that a small group be marginalized and specially chosen for pre-emptive punishment. I suggest that advocates of reason have different values from that and therefore other interests.
The very ideas of liberty, individualism and reason are under an open, outright, violent attack by Islamists. Not just one or two attackers, but tens of thousands. Not just in the Middle East, but around the world and here in America. They are killing people. They do so on the basis of an agreement with Islamist ideas. These are simple statements of fact. Why would writing them out constitute a special pleading for "pre-emptive punishment" or be something that advocates of reason wouldn't be interested in?
Marotta appears to believe, as most progressives do, that objection to Islamist acts of terror or to the dangers of those ideas here in America means that one is a racist. Absorbing certain illogical tenents and holding them too strongly and for too long will result in a mental/emotional disorder. This is the case with Islamism, Marxism and with progressivism.