Randians address Islam threat

The Randian blog NoodleFood has a discussion on what should be done to protect America from Islamic terrorism. The topic is opened by the commenter Madmax. He seems to recognize that there is a problem here that is not addressed by the usual Randian/Objectivist formulae:

… But if this Jihadism gets worse what should the West and America do in our situation? I have serious concerns about continued Muslim immigration in today’s context yet I don’t know how, under Objectivism, the domestic threat from Islam can be addressed.

I know that Objectivists are for bold, offensive warfare against the Middle East. But is that enough? Does it make sense to allow the enemy into your territory? There is no way to distinguish a moderate Muslim from a potential Jihadist or Sharia lover and at least half of the entire Muslim world is sympathetic with the Jihad against the West. That’s over 6oo million people.

Is Objectivism a suicide pact? Or is there some way to address this under laissez-fairre? Far-right conservatives will argue that because Objectivism is pro-open-immigration it is nothing more than another liberal ideology that can not protect or maintain a civilization. I don’t believe this but I have no answer to them for how a society with open immigration can effectively deal with such a monstrous danger as Islam. Does anyone have any ideas on this?

Many commenters reply with their various approaches. One, Sajid, says that Islam is not a threat because when people come to America they drop their religion and become proto-Randian individualists and thus cease to be a problem. Because this happened to him, he evidently believes it will happen with everyone. Sajid also addresses my position on Islam.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 28, 2009 08:32 PM | Send