Quote:
Originally Posted by Devious21
You're talking about enacting a law to remove people's freedoms. Regardless of whether or not you believe you should HAVE to justify that opinion, the bottom line is, you do. The reason you do is because of the fundamental structure of our government.
In the case of what we should be free to do, this country is founded on the idea that "You should be able to do anything EXCEPT - X, Y, Z". Exceptions that we agree as a society benefit us to outlaw. This is the opposite of "You can ONLY DO - X, Y, Z". We start with and prioritize Freedom and make necessary exceptions, not the other way around.
So if you are trying to add another exception to the things we are allowed to do, you need to justify why you believe we should have less freedom. That is the Burden I'm speaking of. It's not on us to justify why we should be allowed to. It's on you to justify why we shouldn't. That is why the question "why do you need this?" isn't a valid one.
You mention you're open to other ideas. I think anyone with an open mind is. But being open to other ideas doesn't mean we are going to implement them without proper justification.
If I'm sick, I may be open to any treatment which can cure me. But I have to be cautious not to act out of desperation and not to try anything that anyone hands me. I have a limitless number of things I could try ranging from raw food diets to blood letting to homeopathy. Do we try them all? Do we only try a few? If so, how do we decide which few we try?
If you propose a solution, you need to demonstrate to me how it will be effective. I'm not just going to fill my body with random trash or perform random procedures in a desperate effort to get better.
|
What you're missing is this forum is like being at a party or a bar. We had a conversation, I said what I thought and you said what you thought and now I would be happy to move on. You are saying I have to justify or prove my opinion to you? I really don't, it's a waste of time, and I am pretty sure I won't change your opinion and you won't change mine.
Every law that has ever been created took away some freedoms and now we have thousands of them. Where in the process of creating these laws is it required that one side prove that the law will work or make things better?
Obamacare is a new law (not saying I agree with it) that many don't like, the law was created, it removed freedoms, did they prove the law will make things better? Many don't believe they did. As long as the legislative process is followed I don't see where any proof of anything is required.
With any issue or decision made (personally or professionally), most look at the facts, look at the options, and then take then take the option they think is best. There is no proof needed to change what you currently do.