Is this stiiiiill going
I support free migration by the way
Me too, but it's extremely frustrating to see that seemingly the strongest proponents of this on VN cannot or would not even attempt to put forward some evidence to support this
If you are so clearly convinced that you are right, then is it so hard to find evidence for your beliefs?
Because this issue of onus of proof is at the very heart of a free society. Who bears the onus of proof when it comes to the exercise of government coercion? It is no coincidence that the quip "innocent unless proven guilty" is so commonly quoted. In one simple line, it describes who bears the onus of proof in criminal law cases, where it is the State that must prove beyond a reasonable doubt why it must exercise of coercion - the potential denial of a person's liberty.
It is no trivial issue, for there is all the difference in the world between a system that adopts "innocent unless proven guilty" as opposed to "guilty unless proven innocent" as a rule for determining the onus of proof.
Rather than placing the onus of proof on the proponents of government coercion, the consequences of shifting the onus of proof onto the citizen to prove why government
ought not coerce, interfere, regulate, tax is that:
"If the government is doing X,
it ought to continue to do X, unless someone proves why X ought not be done", where X could be anything.
What then if X =
1/ government soldiers gang-raping your mother?
2/ systematic execution of Jews?
3/ stabbing someone in the back?
4/ stepping on someone's neck?
5/ throwing someone in jail?
Who then is willing to accept this rule? Not me.
Collin provides further explanation:
The government has no onus to prove to us that caps on immigration are good or bad. Unless there is considerable opposition to caps on migration, will they want to even listen to anyones view. And even in that case, the onus is on the people who oppose the system to give reasons and arguments for freer immigration.
Philosophically, a sound basis for introducing policy is one where you must disprove the assumption that we don't need government. Without this, this implies the government has complete control, and then it is up to others to prove to the government that they should have their freedom, that is if they are not detained before they have the chance to express their viewpoints.
I understand that you are talking about what is the case right now, but for the government to have introduced such a policy in the first place, there should have been a justification (the onus of proof), and then the policy would be implemented. Can you recover the logic?
When talking about what ought to be, we do not consider the status quo. We work from sound philosophical bases. You cannot defend a law that should have passed the onus of proof by simply saying that it is implemented now, and hence it is justified so prove to me that it isn't justified.
Home
Help
Search
Login
