Don’t forget it. This is (partially) in response to the QOTD below.
The argument for liberty is primarily a moral one. Many people focus on cause and effect. We could dig into detail after detail, analyzing this and that cause and this and that effect. In that pursuit, yes, we will find much evidence in favor of liberty.
But liberty is not on trial. Oh no, Young Grasshopper. This may be news to most people, but it is the socialist/communist/Fascist (statist) bloc that is on trail. I hereby accuse it of willfully conspiring to perpetrate envy, hopelessness, fraud, grand larceny, stagnation, decline, anger, hate, conflict, assault, battery, chaos, and mass murder.
It is not up to us to defend liberty as such. We who support and uphold it are the plaintiffs, see? Liberty needs no defense in that sense, because it has done nothing wrong. It needs to be taught, yes, but if any fingers of blame are to be pointed, they should be pointed at the statists, and if any defense need to be mounted, let the accused try to defend their crimes. Let them point back and leer at us— but always understand that they are the accused and we are (liberty is) the injured party.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that Man, by nature, yearns to be free. Sure; with our liberty intact, we do vastly better than we ever do without it, but the argument is primarily a moral one. Right and wrong. Freedom verses force. Choice verses coercion. Good verses evil. America was founded on that principle. Isn’t it time we strive to understand, and then to fulfill America’s Promise of Liberty? For once?
The plaintiff doesn’t walk into the courtroom with a defense attorney at his side. He may need a good prosecutor, but he doesn’t need a defense. Republicans of course have never understood it. A plaintiff or a procesuter who is constantly defending himself, with the perpetrator sitting in judgement, is a blithering fool.