Voluntaryism is the solution to this Burqa bull.

You want a quick and mostly painless way to stop all this brouhaha about Burqas and other Islamic fashion statements? It’s easy, it’s called Voluntaryism, or, if you prefer, Libertarianism. UKIP, on the other hand, (proving once and for all they are NOT a libertarian party, but rather a sort of Daily Express version of the BNP) have instead taken the other approach, of Bansturbation and authoritarianism.

Except this kind of coercive legislating to attempt and solve social problems never, ever works. It never, ever works because of a blindingly obvious rule that an idiot or even a MP* would agree with, that using coercion to get people to live “peacefully” together a manifestly absurd idea. To put it another way, you can’t fuck for virginity, you can’t bomb for peace, and you can’t criminalize a fundamentally peaceful action (wearing a face covering religious dress) in the name of integration and freedom.

Banning the Burqa will solve nothing. In fact, it would make the situation worse. It would give Islamic extremists the Victim Card, marginalise those women who would choose to wear the Burqa given a free choice, and, of course, increase state intervention in our private lives- and all of us would lose in that regard, not just those who are Muslim.

So why are these wanna-be Libertarians bothering? Well, these kind of populist measures are always popular with the public, at least the part of it that has no problem with using the force of the law to enforce their moral principles upon people who’d rather just be left alone, but they don’t actually solve anything. They sure bring in the votes though, which is why these short sighted policies continue to pop up every once in a while. Besides electoral gain, though, they claim their oh-so-altruistic “for the greater good” causes (oh, don’t make me wretch) are:

What we are saying is, this is a symbol. It’s a symbol of something that is used to oppress women. It is a symbol of an increasingly divided Britain.

Wait…

What we are saying is, this is a symbol

Hmm. So, you’re banning it because the subjective aesthetic tastes of a certain group of UKIP policy makers don’t match those of certain Muslim women? Is that it?

It’s a symbol of something that is used to oppress women

Or are you saying that the way to liberate oppressed women is to limit their lifestyle choices?

It is a symbol of an increasingly divided Britain

So, it’s a symbol, is it? If you genuinely believe Britain is divided, wouldn’t it make more sense to go after the actual causes rather than “symbols”?

Sorry, but those reasons are all bollocks. The real reason UKIP, the “libertarian” party, want to, er, pass a law stopping people dressing how they like is simple:

They are part of a cultural, not religious, garment. There is no requirement in the Koran to wear a veil, only to dress modestly. UKIP believes that the wearers are prevented from full assimilation into our way of life because of the feelings of unease they give rise to in the rest of the population…

…”After all, this is Britain and our way of life is to get along with each other. In a liberal democracy, it is not for a small minority to impose their way of life on a majority.

Ah. True colours come out. Nationalistic, collectivist, we’re-afraid-of-different-people nonsense. UKIP are doing this because they see the Burqa as “Not British”. The correct response to this is “so what”?

Seriously, so what if certain groups of the population don’t live as the majority do, or live by different social norms? Farage [for it is he] is right when he says that the minority should not enforce their ways upon the majority, but it works the other way round too. The majority have no place enforcing their social norms on the minorities.

OK, so I’ve made it clear that I don’t think banning the Burqa will do any good whatsoever, and that UKIP are themselves the biggest Burqs of all. Now, here’s how, when people are given genuine freedom of conscience as well as of association, we can expect things to play out:

By allowing people to choose for themselves at the individual level if wearing a Burqa, or indeed anything of the sort, is the right choice for them, we maximize their freedom of choice of lifestyle. As there is nothing about wearing a Burqa per se that is violating the rights of others, it’s a peaceful act and therefore shouldn’t be banned. In public spaces such as tax payer funded streets, etc, wearing the burqa should be permitted, after all, the people inside them have already been forced to pay up their share! On top of that, people should be allowed to wear burqas in their own private homes. I’m pretty sure no one has suggested otherwise. At least, no one worth speaking of.

The flipside is that there should be no legal/coercive means to force people to accept burqas in their business, homes, etc. For example, UKIP go on about how, for example, you can’t wear motorcycle helmets in banks for security reasons. Those buildings are the business premises of a private organization, and they should be entirely free to set their own rules and security measures. Natwest want no face covering clothes of any kind in their branches? That’s fine. There should be no coercive method of forcing them to accept them against their will. They may, of course, go the other way and allow them. Also fine. Voluntaryism is the ideal.

The same goes for (privately owned) shopping centres, the kind that don’t allow hoods up (they exist?), for the same reasons.

In short, at all levels, relationships should be voluntary, NOT coercive. What’s so fucking great about non-coercion? Simples.

When you force people who don’t want to associate with one another to do so, you create animosity and grudges in both parties, which can only lead to yet more animosity in the communities at large.  In the short term, it may seem better to segregate these groups of people, right? Wrong. Here’s the beautiful part:

When people are given freedom of association, they very often find themselves dealing with people they’d usually hate, because it’s in their interests to see past things like skin colour and religion. Freedom of association breaks down barriers between social groups, whereas enforced integration only creates strife. Say you have a business owner with a strong prejudice against Asian people for whatever reason, and he decides to ban any people of Asian decent from his store. Not only does this give him a direct disadvantage by cutting off a good supply of customers, but he also puts himself at the mercy of the decency of the rest of society. Would you be willing to shop at a store that publicly ran a discriminatory practice like that? No, me neither. Thus, the shopkeeper, in an environment of genuine freedom of association, finds himself faced with a choice: drop the racist bullshit, or take a big hit in profits.

The same principle applies not just in business, but in all other areas of social interaction too, but only when it’s voluntary and non-coercive. That’s why UKIP are barking up the wrong tree, and not for the first time, and yet another reason why liberty is the best way for society to solve its problems rather than authoritarian central planning.

Be Sociable, Share!

•