Is Jizya allowed with ancapism?
Is Dhimmi status congruent with ancapism? From what I can remember - and now, I'm a little rusty since I'm not a Misesian-Rothbardian anymore. At best, I'm a libertarian-influenced conservative Hoppean nationalist. Propertarian would do in a pinch.
Let me give you some background. Some of you are cucking or shilling for something about which you know jack shit, probably because you're liberaltarians, 4/20 blaze it, or more entrenched in economics than l'histoire.
To be a dhimmi in Islam means that you are by law disarmed, prevented from gathering in assemblies or functions outside of a small liturgical one (to quell uprisings you see), and it means that you're basically cucked by Muslims with a punitive jizya tax simply for not being a Muslim. This is not something we see one off or rarely in Muslim societies, it is not something occasional; it is the consistent pattern, it is the norm, it is basically ubiquitous in Islamic society that this pattern bares out. Christians, as the largest group who share a common source, are barred from politics in any Muslim country you can think of. The same holds with Jews. Druze, Yazidi, Buddhists, and Hindus are treated far worse. They might get the dhimmi treatment sometimes, and sometimes they get no quarter.
There are additional burdens and pressures placed on the communities of dhimmi historically, as we can see; as of as late as 1000, the Mediterranean shores of Egypt even into the interior a ways, the Levant, and Anatolia were majority Christian. By forced conversions, small pogroms, minor expulsions, and the erosion of Christian institutions as well as what I laid out above (assisted by further migrations of Turks and massacres during and after the Mongol conquests and their successors), by 1200 the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the only Christian influence left aside from a weakened Byzantine Empire which would be further crippled by the Crusader sack of Constantinople in 1204. As of 1400 the religious-demographic picture was entirely different from 1000. Reconquista in Spain was almost complete, although the Ottomans were pushing into the Balkans (can't win everywhere - they'd lose at Vienna soon enough though, and thus would begin their downfall).
Yet Muslims were by then a majority basically everywhere they had conquered for the first time, including in Persia, Khorasan or Transoxiana, and in Anatolia, the Levant, and Egypt. If you had looked even at 1200, there were shit loads of Buddhists and Manicheans running around Khorasan and Transoxiana, still some Zoroastrians in Persia, and Christians everywhere else, and then of course many more Hindus in the Punjab and upper Indus. By 1400 they had imposed their will much more effectively.
How did they spread? How did the Abbasids, Umayyads, and Seljuks spread? How did the Ottomans spread? How did the Fatimids and Mamluks spread? Or the Gheznavids? What of the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate or the Timurids? How did the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughals impose their will? By the fucking sword of course.
Do not atheistkult me. Islam is a religion born of a bandit-turned-warlord who, along with able-bodies allied to him by marriage and kinship, seized opportunity to capitalize upon decent cavalry soldiers and a very tender weakness in both the Sassanid Empire (which proved fatal) and Western Roman Empire which shook the latter to its knees and cost it some of its most treasured possessions. It helped that a sickness ravaged both empires after they had waged a mutually desolatory war as well. Additionally, I have my suspicion that the very basis of the religion is that it probably originated from Christian sermons with Mohammed's self-aggrandizement added at the ass end. After all, an illiterate man does not write in a regional dialect of Aramaic with fluency and I am cynical of the purported accounts from the Quran and Hadiths.
Early Christianity was an underground religion in the Roman Empire, persecuted after Nero made a decree and occasionally Christians were executed for not rendering sacrifices to the gods if they wanted to become martyrs. Some lapsed and made sacrifices. Some became martyrs. Some preachers and church organizers were also martyred as they were uncovered over the years until the persecutions ended under Constantine, at which point the persecutions began for pagans. It's worthwhile to note that these persecutions were sporadic and up to locals and low level imperial officials to enforce. It spread to most places through conversion of nobility and missionary activity foremost, save perhaps Northern Germany and the Baltic countries (Lithuania, Estonia, etc.). The Crusades were the result of 400 years of Muslim armies invading Christendom. What had been Christendom in 600 AD was pretty handily reduced in territory by 750, and Muslims were also sending pirates to raid the shores of the Mediterranean for slaves and booty pretty regularly (a slave trade in which the Jews were pretty big merchants, by the way - especially in Spain).
So let's cut the bullshit. Muslim fuckery led to economic downturn which Christianity and Christian European management improved, including in the Crusader states (which took a fucking nose dive by way of economic output after returning to Muslim rule). There were no "dark ages." Technology was pretty steadily improving from the 8th to the 20th century, the only problem was that early in that period they were relying on technology suited to the Southern Mediterranean when the economic and political axis of power had shifted to Northern Italy, France, England, Spain, and Germany. You could look at farming technologies for a good example. Early in the middle ages they had to rely on Roman style plows which were great for dry soil as in Southern Italy, but for elsewhere in Europe, say France, Germany, or England, it wasn't until about 1100 that substantially better plows that tilled the soil deeper and fastened to horses rather than oxen were developed.
By 1100, the only Muslim armies worth a shit were the Turkic levies - especially light cavalry archers. Everyone else was basically fodder. This bears out by the fact that given a choice to hire Arabs or Turks, most of the [admittedly overwhelmingly Turkish rulers circa 1100] chose to hire mostly Turkish mercenaries for the core of their armies even if they had to fetch slaves from fucking Venetians or Genoans. They had to pay Christians for the privilege of having their soldiers to be equipped to keep their countries in line, and, in some cases, to fight off Crusaders, because no one else was worth a shit.
Prove me wrong bitches!
[Edit:] I also feel it worthwhile to mention that the only societies on the planet to practice systematic systematic exogyny (marriage well outside familial relations) were Indo-Europeans within what is today the Hajnal line. The Hajnal line came about as the result of the Catholic church instituting marriage rules which forbade marriage within six degrees of kinship, which was simply reinforcing longstanding traditions in Northern Europe. The result is that outside of Europe, basically everyone is inbred, none more so than Muslims who tend to practice father's-brother's-daughters marriages most frequently to keep estates within the family. Remember that Molyneux video where he talks about how depleted uranium caused all that genetic damage to the people of Fallujah? Maybe some of it was toxic U-238, but I'm relatively certain that most of the genetic damage was from the fact that Iraqis, Arabs, and Muslims in general are inbred as fuck. HAH
Posted Jul 9, 2015, 4:45 AM UTC · edited
I've read this three times and I still am not quite sure what your point is.
Here's the skinny: you're post is low intelligence and hackish. Reciting opinions mixed with historical records don't make them true and bulk fact recitation makes your prose hard to follow.
Even worse, your question doesn't make sense. Social stigmas aside, in an ancap society there isn't a force to make people pay a tax.
I'd suggest you get out more, because Islam is extremely similar to Christianity and is a brother Abrahamic faith.
Which makes it hilarious that it was adopted by a different sociobiological group, but that's because Christianity is nothing but a diasporic Judaism, after what the Romans did to the Jews militarily. Christianity is nothing but a snapshot of Judaism at that moment; it's why it's an effeminate religion.
Also, a segment of the European populace has always been universal egalitarians and thus receptive to a Chandala religion; they used to be at the bottom of aristocracies, but they have certainly come to the fore in the last four hundred years, and they're slowly self-imploding Western civilization.
I'll say this much: Christianity has insidious sentiments, but the Hellenistic elements, saints and traditions of the Church keep it grounded in Europe. The Semitic baggage is moderated. At this point, it's like a 65% European religion. I won't kiss the Church's ass needlessly, and if it needs to be shed for a superior folkish religion I would favor that as soon as possible. At the same time, if for the sake of community and family I confessed at an Anglican church I would have no problem with that despite that I have no faith in it whatever.
Yes, Christianity was originally merely a Jewish heresy, but it's far more than that now. Even as of the council of Nicaea that was the case.
Certainly, the Europeans didn't become Semites by conversion.
I had my own days of being an apologist for it if I was debating with a facile secular-humanist leftist in my youth; I was a big reader of C.S. Lewis' excellent commentaries on its ascetic elements, which sought ascendancy not mere slavery—note that that's in all likelihood a projection of ancient Germanic asceticism—which I liked, but after allowing it that qualification, I still see no reason to choose it over stronger Indo-European religions.
Not in the sense that you believe in the mythology literally, but that you affirm many of the values.
Contrasting history paragraph of early Christian history in brief to Muslim history (spread by Muhammed and the Ummah, then continued through the Abbasid Caliphate). Low brow shit right after that how they're "extremely similar" or, as an effete decadent like you would moan, "like, pretty much the same and stuff."
So you know fuck all but your analysis wins? All right. I'll defer to the driveling rabbits for this one. Clearly you know what's best.
There is if they force you. Maybe Muslims probably don't want Ancapistan, and the few Muslims who do would get washed out by their brethren who are far more numerous. If you set up walls between yourselves and the Muslims, say put them in the Middle East, North Africa, Indonesia - places like that - and keep us in nice places, then we're good. If you mix our populations, we're going to get rubbed out by a bunch of aggressive low-trust invaders, and if it's up to weaklings like you we'd spread our ass cheeks and prissy up first.
I think the biggest missing element to your rant here is that statism is a religion onto itself. The history that you're pointing at is a history of state violence. It's like 1000 years from now people saying that the US is a christian nation, so the atrocities caused by the US are laid at the feet of christianity. We can see that what the US does is not because of christianity, but because of statism.
So if we can separate what the US does away from christian principles, then why can't you separate what islamic states do?