Personal Liberty and the Burden of Proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michaelo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Michaelo

Guest
Do you think the burden of proof is on those who wish to deny others access to something, in that they must incontrovertibly demonstrate why it should be denied?

or

Do you think the burden of proof is on those who want access to this thing?

Please explain your answer
 
It depends on factors such as whether the thing being accessed is harmful or beneficial - or whether access is a right enshrined in law.

If someone wants access to a potenitally deadly drug, for example, since this is something harmful, the onus should IMHO be on them to demonstrate why that access should be granted. That they have need of it to treat an illness, that they are well trained and qualified to handle and dispense (and administer) it etc etc.

If someone wants access to education, OTOH, this is both beneficial and a right that is enshrined by law. So the onus in such cases should be on those denying access to education to demonstrate why it should be denied.
 
LilyM said:
It depends on factors such as whether the thing being accessed is harmful or beneficial
Click to expand...
Right, and I’m asking whether the denier or seeker of access to something is responsible for analyzing its merits.

For the sake of argument, I must point out that your deadly drug example operates on the assumption that it is in fact “deadly.”
 
Michaelo said:
Right, and I’m asking whether the denier or seeker of access to something is responsible for analyzing its merits.

For the sake of argument, I must point out that your deadly drug example operates on the assumption that it is in fact “deadly.”
Click to expand...
That’s a matter that is determined during the scientific testing that goes on before ANY drug is approved for any use. It ain’t an assumption - it’s a matter of science to figure out whether a drug has a high probability of killing people if taken improperly.
 
Again, and more generally, should the denier or seeker of access to something be responsible for analyzing its merits?
 
Michaelo said:
Do you think the burden of proof is on those who wish to deny others access to something, in that they must incontrovertibly demonstrate why it should be denied?

or

Do you think the burden of proof is on those who want access to this thing?

Please explain your answer
Click to expand...
the burden of proof lies with someone who is positing a positive statement.

e.g.
-Gosts exist.
-Babe ruth was the best ever baseball player.

There is no “positive statement” in your question, so the copncept of burden of proof does not apply. The question of access to a particular item should have the arguemnts for and against heard, and then a decision made. However, if during this process, someone makes a positive statement such as “occasional marijuana use causes schizophrenia”, the burden of proof lies with them for this statement only.
 
I am for a maximum of individual freedom. It should be shown that an action causes loss of other people’s freedom before something is denied. (Onus on the denier). If some thing (a deadly drug) causes problems for a person, that is their lookout as long as it is labeled as being deadly.

I will advise you that taking strychnine is not a good thing, but if you insist…

I will entertain abridging this stand in the case of the very young (ignorant) or mentally incompetent.

God gave us free will. His plan requires its use. As a general rule, governments abridge this. Has anyone ever heard a legislator stand and say, “We need a law against A. I have a problem with A and it is bad for me but I will not stop unless it is against the law.”

They are always trying to do things for someone else’s good. Thank you, I will make those decisions on my own as long as I do not intrude on your freedom of choice.
 
Do you think the burden of proof is on those who wish to deny others access to something, in that they must incontrovertibly demonstrate why it should be denied?

This depends on what you mean by* burden of proof*. If we want to deny others access to child pornography, I don’t think the burden of proof is necessary to demonstrate. In certain matters common sense should prevail. Trafficking in child pornography is intrinsically evil and does not require a “study” to prove it such.

Likewise, denying children or the mentally disabled access to weapons or alcohol is a matter of common sense and does not require a burden of proof.

However, if certain foods or liquids are prohibited in the marketplace because they are supposed to be dangerous to our health, a certain degree of proof should be required, or at least a warning label that this substance may be dangerous to our health.

The government after all has as one of its function to protect the public from evildoers and idiots.
 
Michaelo said:
Do you think the burden of proof is on those who wish to deny others access to something, in that they must incontrovertibly demonstrate why it should be denied?

or

Do you think the burden of proof is on those who want access to this thing?

Please explain your answer
Click to expand...
The claim that a practice is simply immoral is not considered a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting any practice according to the Supreme Court. This is why sodomy laws have been struck down. The burden of proof lies with the one who wants to prohibit something. This doesn’t mean that a study needs to be conducted. I think “proof” is misleading here. It just means that some rational argument must be made as to why there is a social benefit in prohibiting whatever it is and and an explanation of why it is important enough that the socical benefit supercedes individual liberty. It is not enough to say something is immoral, therefore it should be illegal.
 
Leela

This is why sodomy laws have been struck down.

On the other hand, how do we know it was not sodomists who struck down the sodomy laws, and that alone is why they were struck down?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Leela

This is why sodomy laws have been struck down.

On the other hand, how do we know it was not sodomists who struck down the sodomy laws, and that alone is why they were struck down?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you are asking here. Are you wondering whether the Supreme Court Justices who ruled such laws unconstitutional must have been sodomizers? I hope not.
 
LilyM said:
If someone wants access to education, OTOH, this is both beneficial and a right that is enshrined by law. So the onus in such cases should be on those denying access to education to demonstrate why it should be denied.
Click to expand...
I think this somewhat illustrates my point. I would deny education to no one. What I object to is compulsory taxation to fund state educational establishments. I fundamentally object to state educational establishments. I thought when I was ten years old that the the public schools are nothing but propaganda vehicles for the state, and a way for the state to insinuate itself into the domestic household , where it does not belong. Parens patria is a concept absurd on its face. That the state, at best a bunch of strangers, at worst an abstraction, could manage any given private household? I don’t care how many college graduates line up to say that concept is sound, no, it is absurd.
2+2 does not equal 5. And I have not seen any evidence in 30 years to alter that conviction, but only reinforced it.
Again, I deny no one anything, it is I who am being denied something.

Anyway, the general rule of thumb I use is, was this thing permitted or denied prior to 1775 ? Better yet, was it permitted or denied prior to 100 BC ?
Folks love to claim that time and circumstances have changed, but I’m rather inclined to think that, " there is nothing new under the sun " ( where does that quote come from ? 😃 )
Or, the only way in which we have really improved is in the creation of euphemisms, obfuscations, and general purpose lieing.
As much as I might otherwise appreciate our ever-thickening dictionaries, I think the Chinese philosopher Lao Tze was right, human language is very often merely a means so we can lie more effectively.
If you are looking for any basic , clear, simple principles, good luck finding them in the post-1775 world. All I find in it is cant and quibble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top