Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others — the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it.
ARI has taken many controversial positions with respect to the Muslim world . They hold that the motivation for Islamic terrorism comes from their religiosity, not poverty or a reaction to Western policies.  They have urged that the . use overwhelming, retaliatory force to "end states who sponsor terrorism", using whatever means are necessary to end the threat.  In his article "End States Who Sponsor Terrorism", which was published as a full page ad in The New York Times , Peikoff wrote, "The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. Our Commander-In-Chief must decide whether it is his duty to save Americans or the governments who conspire to kill them." Although some at ARI initially supported the invasion of Iraq, it has criticized how the Iraq War was handled.  Since October 2, 2001, the institute has held that Iran should be the primary target in the war against "Islamic totalitarianism".  In response to the Muhammad cartoons controversy , ARI started a Free Speech Campaign in 2006.