MLHerbert@aol.com August 30, 2017 The Economist 25 St. James Street London SW1A 1HG UK letters@economist.com Sir: Concerning “Islam and Democracy” page 7 and “Muslim Democrats, Inshallah” page 18 in Economist vol. 424 no. 9055 August 26, 2017: We used to say, “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll give my life for your right to say it,” and we are now confronted with, “I’ll give my life to shut you up.” On the face of it these are irreconcilable, and installing governments as the Shah and subverting them as in Libya predictably end in tears. One is thrust onto full bore populism, which has been hinted at, but never actually suggested. Attend: arrange all countries from naughtiest (North Korea?) to nicest (Switzerland? … ok then UK) and permit nobody from a naughtier country to enter for tourism, business, refuge, migration or any reason at all. Terrorists must ply their wickedness at home, but eventually the blessings of the Enlightenment must supervene, as they did in Europe under similar regimes. If the enlightenment right of pursuit of happiness still holds, then consider that there is just about nothing as bad as banishment. International law lets you jail, torture and kill. Yet every immigrant constitutes a miniscule banishment for the entire host population. If that still sounds harsh, harness the market and go whole hog liberal. Let the US take a trillion bucks annually (we can afford it) and split it up among the whole world. (It’s too expensive if you means test.) Cell phones will do it. Eftsoons world hunger ends; the credits make their way home or simply circulate; money to the people means power to the people, and many might wish to re-migrate. Cordially, M. Linton Herbert MD Untitled Document

MLHerbert@aol.com
August 30, 2017

 

The Economist

25 St. James Street
London SW1A 1HG UK

letters@economist.com Concerning “Islam and Democracy” page 7 and “Muslim Democrats, Inshallah” page 18 in Economist vol. 424 no. 9055 August 26, 2017

Sir:

We used to say, “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll give my life for your right to say it,” and we are now confronted with, “I’ll give my life to shut you up.”  On the face of it these are irreconcilable, and installing governments as the Shah and subverting them as in Libya predictably end in tears.  One is thrust onto full bore populism, which has been hinted at, but never actually suggested.  Attend: arrange all countries from naughtiest (North Korea?) to nicest (Switzerland? … ok then UK) and permit nobody from a naughtier country to enter for tourism, business, refuge, migration or any reason at all.  Terrorists must ply their wickedness at home, but eventually the blessings of the Enlightenment must supervene, as they did in Europe under similar regimes.  If the enlightenment right of pursuit of happiness still holds, then consider that there is just about nothing as bad as banishment.  International law lets you jail, torture and kill.  Yet every immigrant constitutes a miniscule banishment for the entire host population.

If that still sounds harsh, harness the market and go whole hog liberal.  Let the US take a trillion bucks annually (we can afford it) and split it up among the whole world.  (It’s too expensive if you means test.)  Cell phones will do it.  Eftsoons world hunger ends; the credits make their way home or simply circulate; money to the people means power to the people, and many might wish to re-migrate. 

Cordially,
M. Linton Herbert MD

There have been blank visitors over the past month,, sorry, lost our Google analytics account. We'll try to fix that one day.

Home