UNR Students for Liberty » Barry Belmont

Lucretius, the Libertarian?

Barry Belmont — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:05:06 +0000

No doubt you have come across Lucretius in your Humanities classes, perhaps even being so lucky as to have read his On the Nature of Things. Within it you will see one of the greatest expositions of Epicurian philosophy, intricate poetry, and systemic doubt in authority in all of history. A perfect example of this follows, where, as historian (poet, philosopher, renaissance woman) Jennifer Michael Hecht, “the idea that a world constantly managed by an intelligent force is much less efficient than a universe that generates itself according to regular principles” is developed.

Who can wheel all the starry spheres, and blow
Over all the land the fruitful warmth from above
Be ready in all places at all times,
Gather black clouds and shake the quiet sky
With terrible thunder, to hurl down bolts which often
Rattle his own shrines, to rage in the desert, retreating
For target drill, so that his shafts can pass
The guilty by and slay the innocent?

(Lucretius. On the Nature of Things. Translated and edited by Anthony M. Esolen.)

Basically, the idea that there is some person or god (or set of people or set of gods) who are in any way capable of managing the complexity of the world is absurd. This is the point that libertarian philosophy has been trying to hammer home ever since there was such a thing as libertarian philosophy: how could a person simply by writ control an entire population or environment or universe?

It’s a strong reminder that economics precedes according to a set of laws, and not simply because someone thinks they can tweak a few knobs on some imaginary panel label “The Economy.” Just as we have taken thunderbolts out of the hands of Jupiter, isn’t it time we did the same with the deathgrip politicians have on trade?

Michael Shermer v Fr. Robert Sirico on ‘Natural Rights’

Barry Belmont — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:43:34 +0000

Basic Mathematics of Anarchocapitalism

Barry Belmont — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:30:54 +0000

Let’s assume that “x” is the proposition “A state should exist.” It follows that “~x” is its negation, “No states should exist.” If the statist position S = {x}, is then the anarchocapitalist position A = {}, the empty set, or {~x}?

The Tragicomedic Losses of BP

Barry Belmont — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 04:56:48 +0000

Ron Paul on “The Mosque”

Barry Belmont — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:09:30 +0000

I’ve hated the debate about the “Ground Zero Mosque” for the three or so weeks it’s been in the public sphere of discourse. Everyone’s kind of got an opinion, kind of doesn’t: it seems like half of those who comment on it are not entirely sure what they’re talking about, while the other half is world-weary to the point of ambivalence (mostly going through the motions of the easy-enough logic of 9-11, Islam, freedom of religion, freedom of dissent, communal ties, and public opinion).

However, it turns out Ron Paul has one of the clearest explanations of the situation to date. His comments are listed below in their entirety (the original can be found here):

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, “Nero fiddled while Rome burned.” Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are “fiddling while the economy burns.”

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be “sensitive” requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from “ground zero.”

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we’re supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn’t come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don’t want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be “sensitive” and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society—protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservatives’ aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding a Congressional investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque—a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law—in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of “sunshine patriots” on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

Democracy in an Image

Barry Belmont — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:30:34 +0000

For those who enjoy Ayn Rand…and are crazy

Barry Belmont — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:42:00 +0000

Some guy made the world’s largest bit of graffiti, using his car, his GPS tracking, and his immense amount of free time.

Proposition 8 Struck Down

Barry Belmont — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:38:02 +0000

Take that bigots of the world.

And that people-who-think-you-can-vote-away-other-people’s-rights.

Go get those criminals…oh wait…that’s if I saw them two days ago…

Silly me, I thought rights (you know, like the basic fundamental cogs that turn with every action such as voluntary interaction) were now and forever…

A Primer on Monkey-nomics

Barry Belmont — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:24:14 +0000

The 24 Types of Authoritarians

Barry Belmont — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:53:34 +0000

Taken from Mises.org.