This is one of the problems I have with libertarianism. It is weak on the Islamization of the West to the point where it sounds indifferent to the situation. You might hear libertarians say Muslims should not be deported if they promote the death penalty for non-violent violations of Sharia law because as they say it goes against the first amendment.
So, the growth of radicalism around the world including Europe and North America cannot be stopped by the state because that would infringe upon their first amendment rights? That would be defending them to have a “right” to take away our rights. That sounds counterproductive to the underlining principle of libertarianism. Then again libertarianism is just another ideology like progressivism and conservatism. Its loyal believers will accept everything it teaches like its from the mouth of God and you are not allowed to question it or you are a bad person, so they say. Like I’ve mentioned earlier, if you oppose abortion, homosexuality and Islam, progressives call you a conservative bigot who hates women, gays and Muslims; if you support labor unions, preferential option for the poor and some environmental legislation, consersvatives call you a socialist. In this regard, if you believe Muslims who espouse violent punishments under Sharia and jihad should be penalized, then libertarians say you’re against freedom.
Libertarians, at least the middle of the road ones, will try to say if don’t like X being forced upon you then you can’t force Y upon others. This only works to a certain degree. If you take it to its radical conclusion, you’d have to be okay with people killing others because you could not force your belief of killing others upon others just as you wouldn’t want people forcing you to be okay with killing others. But, uh oh… wait, wouldn’t that be a clear and obvious contradiction? Sounds like that would be forcing you to be okay with something because in the end you would not be allowed to impose your views on murder on others.
Libertarians can be ideologues like anybody else if they’re only defense of something is the first amendment. First, the Constitution may be a great legal document, but it’s not part of the deposit of faith which consists of Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Second, speech has its limits: e.g. you can’t abuse the 911 line, you can’t just shout “fire” in a theater and you can’t say just shout “bomb” on an airplane. It all has to do with the protection of people and society at large. It’s important to think philosophically about what boundaries there are instead of ideologically labelling everything as defended by freedom of speech.
It’s ironic because libertarians are supposedly all about self-defense, but when people want a certain ideology that threatens their freedom so much like Islamism kicked out of the country, then libertarians are up in arms crying out against it.
That’s the strange thing about libertarianism; one minute you might hear something you absolutely like, but the next minute you hear something that’s so far out of the realms of logical or sane that you just cannot bear it. In short: libertarianism is just another ideology.