A good article highlighting the moral aspect of liberty vs statism. http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams106.html
One aspect I would add is to question whether it is possible to claim the moral high ground when giving charity to the needy by using coercion and the muzzle of a government gun? Those “giving” to the cause can’t claim virtue/morality since their action was forced. The person(s) acting on behalf of others are using the threat of jail/violence to steal those resources and violating the rights of individuals. As an example scenario:
John Doe lives in Miami and is dying of a rare brain condition. Jane Doe lives in Alaska, and is a retired Neurosurgeon, but is the only person capable of treating John’s condition. Suzy Smith flies to Alaska, kidnaps Jane Doe at the point of a gun, and they fly back to Miami where John Doe is then treated successfully. – – which of these people can claim the moral/virtuous high ground?
I’m pretty sure there was also an influential book written sometime in the past that preached “the ends do not justify the means”. The Good Book has some great advice.
I believe that conceding the debate on morality is a critical strategic and frequent mistake made by the Libertarian and limited governement movement. As an example, how often do you hear something like “Socialism (or Marxism) sounds good in theory, but simply isn’t realistic…”? This is a “greatest good” realist/utilitarian arugment that I’ve also been guilty of using in the past. The fact is that socialism is an abomination to natural law, human nature, and basic morality, and resulted in the deaths of 100 million people in the 20th century.
Morality is a major component in many folks political viewpoints. Winning the moral argument is key to winning the hearts and minds of the masses, and we should actively seek to fight this battle with the liberals whenever possible – – instead of deferring to the pragmatic, utilitarian, or Constitutional arguments only.
My suggestion is to use a two pronged argument of A) morality, justice, principle, and B) realistic, greatest good, compassionate. Summed up in two sentences it would start something like this:
“I believe the only time it is morally justified for anyone to initiate force or point a gun at another person is in defense to their invasion against individual rights. This moral principle has also been historically proven as the best way to produce the “greatest good” and improve the lives of all people – – including the poorest among us.”
More on this in future posts!