Klaus Norby suggested I turn the following comments that I made on FB into a note. I thank Klaus for his kind words about my comments, and for his suggestion that my comments might be worht sharing more broadly. Anyone who shares Klaus' enthusiasm for these comments is free to share this. And for a full context of all the comments in the thread, you can check out my Wall for the Status Update (and the comments to it) posted on August 20, 2010.
I posted the following status update on FB:
"I find that Objectivists defending the Ground Zero Mosque use a deductive approach that rationalistically starts with constitutional principles and deduces a position therefrom. The inductive approach starts by looking at facts, not constitutional principles. The fact is that a healer would not build this mosque on this site but a warrior would. No constitutional principle can justify accomodating such a warrior."
In response to comments I received from Rob Flitton and Larry Sussman, I posted the following:
First off, I should have included in my status update that many Objectivist *friends* are making this argument. Please do not take my comment above or the one that follows as a salvo. It is not. As Rob stated above, he dis...agrees - and I know that it is honest disagreement.
The reason I posted this status is because in arguing with Objectivists who cite the non-initiation of government force principle as a reason to not oppose this mosque, it occurred to me that the argument is virtually indistinguishable from arguments I have had with libertarians who start with the same premise and unable/unwilling to come to the conclusion that the government may prohibit private individuals from owning nuclear weapons, or that the government may not properly outlaw drunk driving unless the driver actually injures someone, and even some libertarians who have argued that the government may not punish someone who discharges a gun that does not injure anyone. Their position is that if you start with the major premise of the non-initiation of force principle, then take the minor premise of some dangerous/repulsive behavior that did not in fact injure someone, then the last step of the syllogism must be that the conduct cannot be prohibited consistent with the non-initiation of force principle.
I know that both of you do not buy any of that, but I see the arguments against opposing this mosque as virtually indistinguishable from the libertarian arguments cited above. In both cases, they start with a principle ("non-initiation of government force") and then deductively get to the point which says "this mosque cannot be banned because it has not initiated force (yet) against anyone - which is the same argument the libertarians use.
Instead, if you start with the following facts:
- the fact that we are at war with Islamists who are trying to kill us and who have already murdered 3,000 Americans not far from this site;
- the fact that Islamists use mosques in Western countries in the same way that they use them to attack our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (namely, they use the mosque as a cover for deadly attacks);
- the fact that Islam preaches lying to the infidel if necessary to obtain his submission (including the double talk of this Imam to the Western and Arabic Press);
- the fact that Islam always marks the territory of its victories by building a mosque;
- the fact that this Imam has said that the US was an accomplice to 9/11 and has ties to the Gaza flotilla;
- the fact that the name chosen for this mosque is the Cordoba House, which was the name of the Islamic ruling house in conquered Spain;
- the fact that Lower Manhattan is not a primarily residential area and is certainly not a residential area with a large Muslim population that needs a 13 story, $100 million building;
- the fact that NYC allows mosques all over the City, including a very large one uptown on 127th Street;
- the fact that the Governor has offered to try to help them find an alternative location that would not offend so many people;
then you can induce your principles from those facts. Those facts show that this particular mosque is an objective threat, in the same way that an unused nuclear weapon in the hands of a private citizen constitutes an objective threat. The government can take action against objective threats, even before they mature and metastisize into actual harms.
Were it any different, how would you oppose Iran obtaining nuclear weapons in the face of their claims that they intend it as a peaceful, civilian program? Or do you oppose action against Iran right now, absent specific proof of a specific plot against the US?
