d'anconia
07-29-2007, 05:36 PM
All too often I see people argue things from a utilitarian standpoint and sometimes I feel it necessary to remind people that as libertarians we have more than the utilitarian argument on our side... we have the argument for morality. Either the initiation of force and violence (the tools that governments have a monopoly on) is acceptable or it is not. Taxes ARE theft. The government enforcing rules at the point of a gun is a violation of free will and the right to one's self. Anyway, here's a small article I wrote a month or two ago:
When discussing general libertarian arguments and points, as all of us Ron Paul supporters do, it is important to remember that there exist more than one criterion whereby our positions can be supported. All too often I see the Ron Paul supporter debating issues and ending up in a jam when disagreements rise over facts and statistics.<--break-> Does welfare really reduce poverty levels? Has terrorism decreased since the 'War on Terror'? Are different actions taken by Congress allowed by the Constitution? The list goes on and on, and converting people over to Ron Paul's side is not always an easy task.
With that said, when all else fails there is a tool in your pocket that can be very persuasive: the argument from morality. Some socialist and big-government actions can have *supposed* positive side effects but that alone does not justify the action. Laws are, and should be, based on morality before the effects of that law should be taken into consideration. When you run out of arguments, all you have to ask is whether or not the use of force and violence, the two things that the government employs to do its bidding, is morally acceptable.
Sure no one likes poverty but does that mean that the government should be allowed to force a portion of my income away from me to attempt (rather unsuccessfully I might add) to eradicate poverty? Sure the poor might want "free" education for their children but does that mean the state should be allowed to take away some of my money and advocate their own educational agenda with it? Sure some narcotics may have harmful long-term effects BUT should ANYONE be able to force me to put or not put anything into my own body?
The resounding obvious answer, of course, is "no".
I also often see the argument from the Rule of Law standpoint, which is, in itself, a noble idea but let us not forget that it can only be noble if the laws are based on morality. Sure many things are allowed or not allowed by the Constitution but to support action or inaction on that basis is to make the assumption that the Constitution is morally correct. Don't get me wrong, it's a great document but it still arguably has some flaws. Even such issues as slavery can be argued *for* from a utilitarian or Rule of Law standpoint... after all an industry that is able to employ slaves can become incredibly productive, and at times slave ownership was legally sound.
All too often Ron Paul supporters fall into the incorrect assumption, as is often pushed by our opponents, that our positions are not morally justified. Maybe it is the frequent iteration of this that causes many of us to actually start to believe it. The fact of the matter, however, is that as living creatures the greatest evil to us is the threat of force... in essence the death of free will. Even such issues as slavery can be argued *for* from a utilitarian standpoint... after all an industry that is able to employ slaves can become incredibly productive. The libertarian platform, apart from its effective policies, is actually the philosophy which has the most integrity (something us Ron Paul supporters are familiar with). If you believe good and evil exist in our world and know how to use rational thought then you will inevitably come to the conclusion that the decrease in size of the government is the stance that deserves your support.
When discussing general libertarian arguments and points, as all of us Ron Paul supporters do, it is important to remember that there exist more than one criterion whereby our positions can be supported. All too often I see the Ron Paul supporter debating issues and ending up in a jam when disagreements rise over facts and statistics.<--break-> Does welfare really reduce poverty levels? Has terrorism decreased since the 'War on Terror'? Are different actions taken by Congress allowed by the Constitution? The list goes on and on, and converting people over to Ron Paul's side is not always an easy task.
With that said, when all else fails there is a tool in your pocket that can be very persuasive: the argument from morality. Some socialist and big-government actions can have *supposed* positive side effects but that alone does not justify the action. Laws are, and should be, based on morality before the effects of that law should be taken into consideration. When you run out of arguments, all you have to ask is whether or not the use of force and violence, the two things that the government employs to do its bidding, is morally acceptable.
Sure no one likes poverty but does that mean that the government should be allowed to force a portion of my income away from me to attempt (rather unsuccessfully I might add) to eradicate poverty? Sure the poor might want "free" education for their children but does that mean the state should be allowed to take away some of my money and advocate their own educational agenda with it? Sure some narcotics may have harmful long-term effects BUT should ANYONE be able to force me to put or not put anything into my own body?
The resounding obvious answer, of course, is "no".
I also often see the argument from the Rule of Law standpoint, which is, in itself, a noble idea but let us not forget that it can only be noble if the laws are based on morality. Sure many things are allowed or not allowed by the Constitution but to support action or inaction on that basis is to make the assumption that the Constitution is morally correct. Don't get me wrong, it's a great document but it still arguably has some flaws. Even such issues as slavery can be argued *for* from a utilitarian or Rule of Law standpoint... after all an industry that is able to employ slaves can become incredibly productive, and at times slave ownership was legally sound.
All too often Ron Paul supporters fall into the incorrect assumption, as is often pushed by our opponents, that our positions are not morally justified. Maybe it is the frequent iteration of this that causes many of us to actually start to believe it. The fact of the matter, however, is that as living creatures the greatest evil to us is the threat of force... in essence the death of free will. Even such issues as slavery can be argued *for* from a utilitarian standpoint... after all an industry that is able to employ slaves can become incredibly productive. The libertarian platform, apart from its effective policies, is actually the philosophy which has the most integrity (something us Ron Paul supporters are familiar with). If you believe good and evil exist in our world and know how to use rational thought then you will inevitably come to the conclusion that the decrease in size of the government is the stance that deserves your support.