Not really. One of the legitimate roles of government is to protect the citizenry from outside threats. A good case can be made that the citizenry would be safer if Muslims were not allowed to immigrate to this country and if non-citizen Muslims already here were deported.
I agree that that's the libertarian position, and that it's also true.
A good case can be made that the citizenry would be safer if Muslims were not allowed to immigrate to this country and if non-citizen Muslims already here were deported.
Also true. But at the very least this argument is in tension with libertarianism's indifference to religion. There seem to be two conflicting principles. If Mohammedan immigrants represent a danger to society, then Mohammedanism must represent a danger to society. On what basis then can the government maintain an indifferentist position towards Mohammedanism and all other religions, if one of the legitimate roles of government is to protect the citizenry from threats?