3 ms·

> I think you have to provide a stronger framework why this thing is okay and that thing isn't. I don't think this is abstract ethical argument, but practical

> I think you have to provide a stronger framework why this thing is okay and that thing isn't. I don't think this is abstract ethical argument, but practical argument about policy. So we don't have to provide any stronger framework. Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant. Starting from "allowed by default" would already be a big improvement. > applying this rigorously would mean e.g. legalizing all drugs, which is a difficult sell Homosexuality was also a difficult sell. That doesn't mean anything.

solidsnack9000 8y ago
Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant. Yes, this is what limited government is about. It makes policy makers accountable to the people, not the other way around. Because the government can not really implement a ban per se, but rather a particular policy that hopefully eliminates the harm, policy makers actually have to make a case for something and not just against something. Otherwise, it's just the government proclaiming that the world would be better off without something. In which case, let us start with war, margarine and bad coffee.