Yes it does, because they’re ill-informed xenophobes.

http://libertyphile2.blogspot.com/

The analysis gives also a good picture of why people support the ban.

- which might well be preferable to what occurs under what Miliband père correctly described as capitalist democracy, i.e. the tyranny of that tiny minority, the ruling class.

When did you last beat your wife?

Which one? And does Liberal Conspiracy really need to take lessons in headline-writing from a blogger who isn’t even a real bear??

Nobody needs to apologise for the post title. Anyone who reads this post will understand that I agree with Hannan’s argument, and anyone who’s read other stuff I’ve written will know that I understand how consistent his position is with libertarian thnking. For example, I’m one of a few writers on this site who’ll get defended by libertarians for my position on drugs.

However, I’m not sure Hannan’s position is necessarily consistent with thinking amongst conservatives, and I think some of the comments on the end of his post support that. There will be people who agree with him on a great number of areas but still won’t be able to support him on this; and I find that noteworthy.

Failing all that, I just thought his argument was one of the best I’d read. Nobody can be wrong all the time

Heh. Seconded. Don’t you love faux outrage by right-whingers?

Quite easily convinced by naked bigotry then are you cjcjc? I suppose if anyone accused all Jews of something, you’d be ok with that too?

I love it when Mini-Fawkes (aka Tory Bear) gets all mock-angry.

It’s not so much a debate on ‘acceptable outcomes’ as to what matters should be put to a ‘democratic’ vote in the first place. Whatever the result of the vote, it is the legitimacy of the question that matters.

Democracy is an excellent tool for deciding on matters which effect the participants but it’s a lousy system for deciding matters which matter a great deal to a small number of people but place a negligible burden on others.

My neighbours might legitimately ask for restrictions if I have music blaring out of my house at all hours of the night but they have fuck all say on what I listen to on my iPod.

Minaretes do not, in themselves, impose on the rights of others.

I’m an atheist and I would be happy to see religion consigned to the history books but that’s the job of argument and reason – or even mockery – not legislation.

This is nonsense. Muslims are still only a minority, and stoning, beheading and amputation of these groups will not happen under current, secular laws.

Oh, you mean the one that goes against UN laws, bombs civilians and imprisons people without due process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

I love Jews – Zionists, however are a different matter.

Would those different types be Islamophobic-fuckwit-libertarians, and at-least-ideologically-consistent libertarians?

I am entertained to see some commentators, who normally have no problem dishing out harsh words to those they disagree with, suddenly get all offended on Hannan’s behalf.

You know Israel the only f*****g democracy in the middle east.

What is up with you anti-semites, islamists and left & right arseoles.

It’s my piece and I have been following the comments, and because Neil is also writing about this subject (and I am vain) I assume he has too.

Essentially, a fairly large number of Libertarians, including the Number 3 Total Politics Libertarian Blogger, have made utter fools of themselves with respect to this issue.

Dan Hannan is a prominent Libertarian blogger, and it appears one who is far more philophically consistent the Old Holborn et al. on this thread here. This is what the “even” refers too.

Without the context, it does look a little aggressive, especially since this site has a habit of attacking – with justification – Dan Hannan, but I think more than enough plausible explanations have been offered to explain it. Also Neil is a nice person, but we’ll have t wait to see which plausible explantion is actually the correct one when he comes back from whereever he is.

Obviously it can also be read as implying that he is a notable proponent of anti-muslim legislation which would be untrue as far as I am aware and therefore highly unfair.

One of the side effects of being a supporter of direct democracy is that you must accept the tyranny of the majority.

Perhaps, but that acceptance need not be entirely unconditional. For example, it would be perfectly possible to support both direct democracy and the UDHR/ECHR, in which case the provisions of the latter would necessarily overrule the former. Also, in any country with a written constitution, that constitution would obviously place limits on the acceptable outcomes from direct democracy.

It is generally accepted that majority support does not make illegal actions legal, or unconstitutional actions constitutional.