When arguing in favor of libertarianism, I find that my arguments are of two kinds, moral and practical. The former are more philosophical in nature, the latter deal with results. People seem to favor one kind over the other in terms of which they find more compelling, but what has struck me is the perfect coincidence of the two. The more practical option is the more moral option, and vice versa.

Consider the argument over free trade. The moral argument is very simple: if you produce something and wish to sell it, what right does any entity - call it a government; call it the mafia – have to prohibit, tax, regulate or otherwise interfere with the transaction? A more philosophical socialist will at this point delve into rights and social contracts and the debate will, if the libertarian knows what he is doing, head towards the core value of self ownership.

But most people are more interested in results, and in response to the moral argument either shrug their shoulders or nod their heads with a knowing smile and say, “But…!” It is then easy enough to paint a broad picture of how important free trade has been in creating wealth and mix in examples of the failure of protectionism with the successes of free trade. Not that convincing other people is easy, because there is a mountain of misinformation out there, not to mention the tendency most people have of running away and changing the subject in response to valid points that they are not equipped to deal with. But the broad picture is easy enough to paint, and this practical one is the one which will be most effective with the ordinary person.

Things get more interesting when someone poses the question of what should be done if the moral answer is not the practical answer. This point is often raised when the libertarian has done a decent job of demonstrating the moral and practical soundness of his ideology and the other now wishes to explore further. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises refused to answer the question. When asked, “What if socialism were more efficient?” he invariably responded, “But it isn’t.” Repeating the question elicited an identical response.

Without a more concrete example, it is difficult to takes sides. What follows may well be a series of proposed conflicts which invariably prove to be nothing of the sort, until only highly unlikely lifeboat situations are left. This is not necessarily time wasted, as the unfaltering debunking of these supposed conflicts can itself impact a person’s perceptions and ideology, but it does not answer the question that Mises so obstinately avoided.

How do we answer such a question? If something is morally wrong, but produces results for everyone in general, can we support it? If something is morally right, but spells doom for everyone, or at least poverty and unhappiness, can we support it? The Mises response initially strikes one as a cop out. I don’t like the question so I am not going to answer it.

But the very fact that no concrete examples can be given is telling in and of itself. Maybe Mises had the right idea after all. Thank whatever you consider responsible for the creation of the universe, but we live in a reality where certain laws reign. With regard to human behavior, that which is moral is also that which is practical. The relationship is so strong that I am tempted to settle the debate on certain conundrums simply by finding the more practical of the two sides (or in areas where practicality is more difficult to determine, by determining which is more moral).

This is not to say that one side is less important than the other - however more you may find one aspect to be a more compelling argument for libertarianism – it simply means that both aspects compliment and reinforce one another. Gun control? It is not moral to deprive someone of a tool that they have determined is important for their self defense. Oh yeah, reducing gun control also reduces crime. Drug Laws? All they have done is increase crime, destroy urban neighborhoods, create a permanent underclass, waste billions of dollars and increase the use of the very drugs that some seek to eradicate. Oh yeah, it’s also immoral to imprison a person because you disagree with what they do with their own bodies. Zoning laws? Giving politicians the right to control your property is in effect handing over your property rights to them. What right do they have to dispose of your property? Oh yeah, zoning laws also distort the market away from what consumers want and towards what politicians want, not to mention contributing to the blight that these laws are supposed to stamp out.

So let the “what if’s” come. Ask for examples, and then spend your time showing how those examples do not at all illustrate a divergence of morality with practicality. As I said, that itself can be a powerful and persuasive tool. When it becomes clear that no true example is forthcoming, you can point out the perfect coincidence of the two. Questions of which is more important, the result or the moral behavior, are for another universe, one with different laws and in which we quite apparently do not live.

But what if gun control reduced crime? What if deficit spending could jump start an economy? What if imperialism spread peace and order? What if drug laws saved lives? What if government planned the economy well? What if licensing laws protected consumers? What if wealth distribution provided for a stronger economy? What if regulations protected us?

But they don’t.