Does liberty always lead to best outcomes? If it doesn’t, does it justify curtailing it?
I have two questions:
#1 Do you think more liberty will always lead to better outcomes for the individual?
For example, in my country, every working person is forced to pay into a national retirement fund which will pay out a retirement to them at a certain age. I can imagine that there’s a lot of people who, in the absence of this, would screw their retirement money up and end up poor or homeless as old people.
So, do you think there are cases (maybe not this example, but something else) where less liberty will lead to better outcomes.
And when I say better outcomes, I mean better outcomes FOR THE INDIVIDUAL whose liberty is being curtailed, not for society as a whole.
#2 Assuming there ARE cases where less liberty leads to better outcomes FOR THE INDIVIDUAL (again, not society), does that justify curtailing liberty?
This is a thought experiment, so let’s take it as a given that we knew that if we reduced a person’s liberty in some way it would lead to superior outcomes for that person (judged by that person), would you say it is then morally justified to reduce that person’s liberty OR would you maybe say it is then even a moral imperative to reduce that person’s liberty?
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society