Shari'a Law

1. I'm not sure I understand the aim of Pro's rant against libertarianism; it's either a gross misunderstanding or an intentional caricature of my position. Pro claims that "[without a] government to guide people it has no sense of morality whatsoever." First, I'm advocating voluntaryist minarchy, not anarchy -- I support the existence of a night watchman state. Second, voluntaryism is itself a normative code based on the non-aggression principle: assuming ceteris parabus, no person or organization (government included) is justified in using initiatory violence against another person or his property. The murder example clearly violates this. Regarding racism, it's impossible to read an individual's mind, ergo it is impossible to punish racism qua racism, however, racists will still be held accountable for any outward rights-violating actions they take regardless of their motivation. The child abandonment issue is a point of contention among libertarians, however, I hold that since parents voluntarily initiate the causal sequence leading to conception and child birth, they are responsible (to a point) for raising the child. I'll expand on this in the next section. Limiting free speech as my proponent proposes is despotic. Pro has claimed in the forums that teenagers should be put to death if verbal bullying leads to suicide. How could this possibly be enforced? How would you determine which act it was that pushed a person over the edge? How do you take account the psychological factors that may have made a victim more prone to suicidal thoughts? Moreover, if you punish any form of expression that might lead to depression or suicide, that would mean outlawing things like unfavorable book reviews and satire. http://mises.org... Clearly, we cannot curtail the rights of libelers, slanderers, and bullies without placing free speech on insecure ground. Finally, if we take a private property based approach to rights, the issue is far less problematic. The right to free speech does not mean that one is free to follow someone into her house and harangue her at length. Property owners would be able to set their own laws governing conduct. b. There is a clear distinction between "guiding" and "oppressing." Guiding implies passive influence and voluntary compliance or non-compliance; oppressing involve the active imposition of one's will upon another person. Anyone who does not *want* to wear Hijab, or be an at home mother cannot be forced to. The underlying ethical framework is akin to Aristotle's attempt to justify slavery on the grounds that it is better for the slave -- of course, neither Aristotle nor my opponent bother to ask the slave for his opinion on the matter! Moreover, if, as my opponent claims, women are converting to Islam in droves, then mandating the wearing of Hijab becomes superfluous; why require what people already do voluntarily? Finally, if women are treated with equal respect in predominantly Muslim nations, how does my opponent account for the massive gap in literacy rates between men and women? https://www.cia.gov... Young children are endowed with the de jure right self-ownership, thus they cannot be abused, mistreated, or killed. However, parents act as de facto stewards. Children, while living in their parents house, are subject to the rules set for them. As they grow older and achieve greater levels of autonomy, their privileges are expanded accordingly. Children are free to leave their parents house and try to make it on their own as soon as they acquire the means to do so. Children who *like* living under Shari'a law may indeed choose to stay within the community as adults. c. My contention here is not "Saudi Arabia doesn't release crime statistics, therefore Shari'a is bad" -- I tagged my argument "[d]rug and alcohol prohibition are ineffective" in the first round, so there should be no confusion on this point. Prohibition fails, create bad incentives, and violate the right to personal autonomy. Pro's response is a red herring. http://www.fallacyfiles.org... The empirical evidence in Portugal and the Netherlands vindicate my line of reasoning. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized almost all intoxicants, including "hard" drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. Usage rights have markedly declined, especially among young people. HIV infection rates are down and twice as many people are now voluntarily seeking rehabilitation. http://tinyurl.com... d. Pro's claim that Islamic nations are among the most prosperous in the world is frankly laughable. Moreover, my contention is rooted in the a priori science of praxeology. http://mises.org... Without a proper interpretive understanding of human action, it is impossible to ascribe a definite cause to a given effect. Even if Pro's claim is true (it's not), he has fallen victim to the epistemological problem of economics. http://mises.org... Money has a time value. This is not arguable; if my opponent (or anyone else for that matter) disagrees, I invite him to transfer to my bank account whatever funds he's not presently making use of. I'll be sure to return it, sans interest, thirty years hence! Any hypothetical prosperity a Muslim nation might achieve would be *in spite* of ridiculous financial policies, not *because* of them. 2. Pro claims that my position on punishment is based purely on emotion, which I find absurd. I explained myself quite clearly: the focus should be on restitution to the victim; Pro has not explained why the emphasis should instead be on inflicting retribution. Moreover, if, as Pro stated, the goal of punishment is to deter would-be criminals, why stop with an eye for an eye? If all crimes were made punishable by death, it would do a great deal more to deter. Surely, if we punished petty theft, illegal downloading, and the tearing off of mattress labels by boiling the offender in hot oil, people would be far less apt to do so! If Pro wishes to be morally consistent, there is no reason to limit punishment with proportionality. 3 & 3b. Although Pro's response was vague, it appears he's taken the first horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma -- that God gives normative commands because they are *intrinsically* good in and of themselves. From a metaethical standpoint, this is problematic for the theist as it essentially makes God irrelevant and limits his sovereignty by binding him to an external code over which he has no control. Additionally, if it is the case that moral facts exist independent of God's character, then we can reasonably assume that these values supervene at least partially on human well being, fairness, justice, etc. and that we possess some ability to discover and understand them. If I can show that Shari'a does not accomplish these ends, or fit these criteria that is powerful evidence that it is not revealed by God. Certain Shari'a statutes -- like the ban on pork products and the regulation of beard length -- clearly reflect amoral cultural norms. It's absurd to believe that having too much or too little stubble could be *intrinsically* wrong. I can't conceive of what amoral property facial hair possesses that might lead us to such an ethical conclusion. The ban on pork is similarly nonsensical. Pork meat actually contains less uric acid than chicken breast, salmon, herring, tuna, and lamb. http://www.goutpal.com... Even if pork was more unhealthy than other foods, that doesn't justify a ban. Donuts, cookies, cake, ice cream, potato chips, and hamburgers contain much more sugar and saturated fat than pork. This relate to the paternalism theme: if people feel that the pleasure they get from consuming unhealthy food outweighs the risk of obesity, heart disease, or diabetes, what right does anyone else have to prevent them from doing so? The resolution is negated.