UNR Students for Liberty » Libertarianism

Margaret Thatcher, The New Love of My Life

Barry Belmont — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:49:53 +0000

I am absolutely enraptured by the beautiful, straightforward, and powerful way the former Prime Minister of England is able to defend classical liberalism. In these series of clips you can see her topple smug socialists, destroy the fallacy of self-sufficient governments, and rally for the globalization of free trade. How anyone could be opposed to free markets, free trade, and free societies after hearing such clear arguments is utterly beyond me.

Morality and Legality

Barry Belmont — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 18:47:22 +0000

I would like to put forth the notion that morality and legality, while containing overlap, are actually two different things, such that libertarians (when speaking about liberty) should only be concerned with the latter and leave the former to other individuals at other times. This is not to dismiss the value of either field of study, but only to suggest that the two are distinct enough to generally require a narrowed focus on one or the other (just as biologist and chemists hold different meetings, read different books, teach different classes). And the way I would like to do this is to use a well known (perhaps the most well known) example of morality and inverse it slightly to show the demarcation between morality and legality.

Morality: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It’s the most famous phrasing of the most underlying principle of all morality. The idea of morality is to treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. If you wouldn’t generally liked to be lied to, stolen from, spat upon, then don’t do these things to other people. It’s such a simple idea that it probably lies somewhere deep in our ancestral past (even chimps and apes appear to follow the principle). And I claim that this is the sought after “ought” inherent in all morality — this provides the impetus for action.

Legality: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you. And this is what I consider the fundamental principle behind what all laws should be. All laws essentially restrict some kind of meta-untamed ‘freedom’ that exists in the ethereal ‘state of nature’ of the olden philosopher (I happen to think that the term ‘freedom’ here is often times unjustly associated with what we take ‘freedom’ to mean now, but that is a discussion for another day). In that sense, laws restrict what people would otherwise be “allowed” to do. A law like “do not kill” restricts the ‘freedom’ (see above parenthetical comment) of murderers. “Do not steal” and “do not rape” do the same to thieves and rapists. Hence we see that all laws should be negative laws, laws against certain actions — providing disincentives for action.

Going forth, I will use this as my provisional understanding about the intentions of morality and legality (what one ought to do vs. what one should not be allowed to do). I understand that the language of this piece would seem to suggest that a proposition like “not killing” would fall squarely under legality and not the morality side of things — and suggest to some that killing should not be taken under moral consideration — but I emphatically deny this to be the case. This proposal is still formative, quite rough around the edges, and will admit of exceptions. However, I posit that most of these counterintuitive morality vs. legality conundrums have more to do with the fact that atrocity high up on the Scale of Awful adversely affect many fields and hence cannot be constrained to either legality or morality. Thus with weighty issues it is better to understand that there is massive overlap between fields of study rather than trying to parse everything out through time-wasting word games.

But for things farther down on the Scale of Awful, this version and inversion of the ‘Golden Rule’ proves an excellent framework that filters legal and moral considerations. ‘Taking drugs’ for instance, which is considered immoral by some, would be something that would compel one not to personally take drugs, but simultaneously prevent one from stopping others from doing so, and vice versa. The same is true of eating products that contain trans fats, gambling, sending children to school, and just about every other libertarian talking point. It hopefully frames the discussion in such a manner as to show where all the confusion has lain.

And it also answers that pesky ‘should taxes be compelled?’ question…

Sanctity of Human Life Sunday?

John Russell — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:48:44 +0000

January 22nd has been designated by many pro-life groups to raise awareness regarding the issue of abortion and the sanctity of human life. An article on Lew Rockwell entitled Pro-Lifers for Mass Murder highlighted the hypocrisy many members within these groups have when it comes to their ardent opposition to abortions but their complete approval in the actions the State takes to slaughter people over seas. Though comparing the murderous activities of war to that of abortion is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest, I would like to extend and broaden the hypocrisy claim given in the article by describing members within these groups who feel that designating rights at the expense of other people is wrong, such as providing ‘free’ healthcare or welfare to some people at the expense of others, but find that doing so with an unborn child is completely justified.

The abortion debate can be summed up into the notion of private property rights. The uterus is just as much as someone’s private property as a house. If one were to leave their front door open, say by mistake or to merely let in some fresh air, and one comes downstairs to find a bum sitting on the couch, a home owner is fully within their right to kick ‘em out. Right? Even if by kicking him/her out of the house directly causes that bum to die, one cannot possibly be obligated or be responsible for him and be coerced into housing and feeding him until he is back on his feet. By forcing a woman to bear a child, pro-life proponents seeking government enforcement are positively and forcefully designating rights to the child at the expense of someone else, in this case the mother. This is the same reason why positively assigning healthcare rights or welfare rights through coercive means to some people at the expense of other people is equally wrong.

I’d like to hear some input from some of you regarding this argument, but if we are to believe that we own ourselves, our actions, and the things which we acquire when performing these actions, then why must this be foregone when a unwelcome guest implants itself in the body?

Reason TV: ‘We Need a Libertarian Che Guevara’

Barry Belmont — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:48:02 +0000

Check it out. Here’s an interview with libertarian activist “Starchild” saying that the libertarian movement needs to move forward with new and innovative strategies to move the cause of libertarianism forward. And while his choice of ‘Che’ is likely to ruffle a few feathers, I believe that is exactly his point.

Hopefully we here at the UNR SFL are at least on the right path for what it is he is looking for.

Respect for Opinions and the Lack Thereof

Barry Belmont — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 05:31:25 +0000

I had a brief encounter with Mike (the new president) just the other day where he reminisced about the “good ol’ days” where debate at the SFL meetings were more about presenting arguments and respecting people’s opinions and less about a “what I am presenting is objectively right, and you are quantifiably wrong if you believe otherwise” type of discussion the club seems to have moved into. He pointed out that I had a heavy handed role in this transformation — I am the chief culprit in this crime of believing in the objectivity of political philosophy.

But I feel it is a crime worth committing.

Questions on political philosophy from taxes and militaries to the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage all have answers. Not only do they have answers, but they have right and wrong answers (assuming that the whole point of political philosophy is to better the human condition*). And though these answers may be hard to come by or hard to understand, they do exist and the weight of their evidence should convince us above all else.

This is why the art of argumentation is one whose techniques I never cared to learn. It shouldn’t really matter how well you follow the decorum of some kind of archetypical debating pattern, nor should it really matter how eloquently you make your point: all that should convince any of us of anything at the end of the day is how well the claims of a person stand up against reality.

And hence, respecting someone’s (what we call) “opinion” is often the last thing we should do. Let me qualify that: I do not mean to suggest that certain matters of taste (real instances of “opinion”) don’t exist, they do. People can legitimately hold completely different views of music, art, food, sport teams, etc. There isn’t a “right” favorite television station anymore than there is a “wrong” choice of cooked eggs. This is because these opinions are real matters of subjectivity, experienced uniquely by a single individual. Political opinions are quite different, however, as they make claims about the nature of the world around us. When someone says Law A will do X and someone else says Law A will not do X, one of them must necessarily be wrong, there is no subjectivity on the matter.

And this applies to practically every question of political interest. Can there be any doubt that taxes either are beneficial (under a certain set of circumstances) or they are not? Can there be any real ambivalence as to whether or not to treat homosexuals or blacks or women the way we treat upperclass white males? Can we really believe that issues of liberty and freedom are merely matters of taste? These questions have answers. And these answers matter.

So yes. I believe that many of the most important questions we can ask of political philosophy do indeed have correct and incorrect answers. And you should too.

Kinsella’s Intellectual Property Against Intellectual Property

Barry Belmont — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 04:35:50 +0000

Like the idea of intellectual property? Then clearly you’ve never read Stephen Kinsella’s Against Intellectual Property, nor signed up for his class (which started today and goes until December 17). Luckily, the first of his slideshows is available (and seen below), as well as a recent speech of his on the fact that intellectual property actual hampers the cause of capitalism. So go ahead and check it out and see if you can still proclaim the fallacies of intellectual property (it is what is “owed” to somebody, it inspires creativity, etc) with a straight face.

Vaccinations: Part 3 of Several

Barry Belmont — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:29:21 +0000

Parents of children are those adults whom have homesteaded the rights of raising that child. While what these rights (to raise) entail is genuinely open to discussion and revision, what is known with as much certainty as anything could ever hope to have is that parents must earn these rights. They do this by fulfilling a certain set of obligations understood (at the very least) implicitly by most people most of the time in most situations. For example, we all can generally agree that feeding children is something parents must do (by definition) to be parents, whereas burning them across the face as a form of punish is probably not something we agree parents should do.

This set of obligations includes such things as feeding children, clothing them, providing shelter, etc. We can see that each of these adds to a definition of parenthood which increases the overall liberty/well-being of all involved. And while other things such as a good education and delicious food may also contribute to the overall “good life” for children, we do not view these as requirements to being a parent. The reason is simple: things like food are readily available and economically feasible whereas PlayStations and foie gras are not. In other words, things that are cheap and easily at hand are recognized as plausible for such a large portion of the population so as to be possible for everyone.

And yes, yes, there is a continuum to such things, but it is my contention that vaccines fall under the category of readily available and not prohibitively expensive. And since vaccines prevent children from suffering horribly and dying, I claim, parents, if they are to be called parents, must have their children vaccinated.

Part 4 will consist in answering many of the questions you are no doubt asking: who is to say what is required, how will it be enforced, what happens if someone doesn’t vaccinate their child?

Drug Legalization: Case Study

Keegan Idler — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:55:33 +0000

There is a lot of argument on the necessity of the drug war. The benefits would be revenue gained from taxation, less drug dealers and less drug war associated crime, less money spent on fighting the drug war (police, jails, customs, etc.), easier access to treatment, and of course freedom.

The harmful effects are less clear… will people use more drugs? Will this lead to higher violent drug user crime? Will children have more or less access to drugs?

Well, Portugal legalized all illegal drugs, and so provides a fantastic case study of the issue. In short, the answer is that legalization is better in every possible way (that I can think of at least).

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html?ref=nf

Vaccinations: Part 2 of Several

Barry Belmont — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:07:45 +0000

Just so we’re all on relatively the same page, I cede a portion of my time to the good Misters Penn & Teller:

A few assumptions I’ll be making along the way:

We live in a fairly modern society where the availability and price of (the relevant) vaccines are comparable to other products we expect parents to provide for their children, such as food, clothing, and shelter.
Biological parents are not guaranteed possession of their children.
Parents must earn the rights to be parents.

Vaccinations: Part 1 of Several

Barry Belmont — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:47:59 +0000

So, being an avid follower of the Skeptic’s movement for a good portion of my life, I have been bombarded with refutations of “anti-vaxers” for the past several years. For some reason, I have tried to pay it little mind, usually placating myself with “Well, it’s just a parent’s decision to raise their child” much as I would for most anything else, such as education or moral upbringing.

Well, this report out of Africa about measles taking the lives of 70 children because their parents refused to have their children vaccinated was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I can no longer placate the voice in my head that has constantly hummed that “this is wrong, this is wrong.”

So consider this the prelude to case I’ll harp on for the coming weeks: Vaccinations should be mandatory. I know this is a bold claim to make in the face of us live-and-let-live libertarians, but consider, just briefly, that we all must first “live” to be libertarians. And we can’t very well do that, or we shouldn’t very well have to do that as children, without vaccines.