Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
What if liberty resulted in less prosperity and more violence?
That demagogue (Mencken defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.") Thom Hartmann is at it again. In a nutshell, he is proposing that the right to keep and bear arms should be curtailed because some stats have shown an increase in violence in right to carry states.
This lead to my question. What if liberty resulted in less prosperity and more violence? We know it won't but what if it did? I would still support liberty.
__________________
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it
Learned Hand
In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz
Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.
F.A. Harper
I see liberty as simply being that condition which is most conducive to human happiness, especially my own. If the laws of the universe flipped tomorrow and suddenly being controlled by others resulted in my happiness then that's what I would be in favor of. If my own happiness is not my goal, what is?
However, some stats on violence are not sufficient evidence that this flip in the laws of the universe has occurred. I'll take my chances through a significant increase in violence in the rational assessment that it's worth it to be free.
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe."
Frank Zappa
I have absolutely no doubt that, if true liberty were to be achieved tomorrow, there would be break outs of violence amongst those who would see it as an excuse to whatever they want. I believe that because there are laws, police and threats of improsionment now and people still think they can do whatever they want. I still don't see those people as a legitimate excuse to point guns in everyones face and force them to pay for the existence of a government that is already failing to stop these criminals.
--
Jackie Fiest
There is a problem with statistics: causation and corelation. You can NEVER prove either with statistics, but instead can only imply with inductive reasoning and form a strong case. This is how science works. You can never prove any scientific theorem or law deductively. Take gravity for example. You can only show how through repeated tests that it has NOT been proven wrong.
The issue is most people who believe in liberty do so from a moral stance, and moral stances are developed through deductive reasoning.
I tend to agree with Nich. My belief in liberty is based upon my moral principles about how we should treat each other. I believe in the non-aggression principle not because of any anticipated empirical results but simply because I believe it is the right way to act.
How are you deriving your definition of rightness? Why is moral behavior preferable to immoral or "wrong" behavior?
I can offer not proof that moral behavior is preferable to immoral behavior. I't simply a personal principle, a belief. Ultimately all morality rests on fumdamental value judgements.
I think this is where it gets a little hairy even within libertarian circles. Some people tend to be believe natural law is the basis for determining what is moral or immoral, believing morality is transcedent throughout time. Others believe what society impacts what is moral or immoral. Gard has an interesting position on this
For me it simply is about the pursuit of my own individual happiness as defined by me in a rational manner at any given time. I cannot find another determiner of morality or derivative source for natural law. That which leads to happiness is moral. As organisms we come preloaded with a number of instinctive or emotional responses that tell us what is moral, but they generally match up with the rational pursuit of happiness as that is their evolutionary source. We come with a want of happiness to serve and guide our life because if we did not, our genes would have died out. I leave my neighbor alone, or help serve his life because this exchange helps my own happiness. I avoild hurting him because I don't want incoming fire from his direction. If he fires at me first, it becomes moral for me to fire back to eliminate the threat and preserve my own happiness/life in doing so. If I see someone else being hurt, it bothers me emotionally, not because an ancient book says it's wrong, but because if I let that go on I am next or somebody else that is of great value to me is next. I am driven to create a better world because I have to live in it. It is a happiness loss for me in general over the long term to stand by and watch injustice. Even within issues of personal choice such as excessive recreational drug use, sexual promiscuity, etc. morality flows from that which is conducive to life/happiness of the individual. Generally, that which is considered immoral is so because it results in the unhappiness of the individual.
Even if your simply trying to get into heaven by following religious moral codes you believe come from God, you are doing so because heaven sounds a hellofa lot happier than hell.