|
'Most normal people', in case you haven't noticed, think that there should be virtually no limitation on government action, and that government should be responsible for everything... *We already know* what the status quo is: the question is what is the justification, if any. You have not shown any. While you overstate "most normal people's" peference for State intervention, it is clearly true that normal people do prefer significantly more government intervention than Libertarians. It is also the case that the status quo reflects those preferences to the extent that our democracy allows and, thus, that there is much more government intervention at present than Libertarians would prefer. But the fact that Libertarian preferences differ from normal people's preferences, and/or differ from the status quo, is no basis for arguing that the onus of proof should be shifted to advocates of the status quo, rather than advocates of change. Of course, you may believe that there is something inherently "right" about Libertarian ideology that means that it should always be implemented, unless good reasons can be advanced in specific cases as to why it shouldn't be. (No doubt some socialists once thought the same about their own world view). But as I pointed out previously, in the real world, the onus of proof generally lies with the advocates of change; not with advocates of the status quo.
The onus of proof in rational argument is usually on the person making the assertion. True, but two points. First, as previously noted, this argument kicked off with an implicit assertion by a Libertarian - Peter Carswell - that the market should decide on defence. Second, as noted, I am defending the status quo, not trying to change things, so until such time as a sufficiently credible argument with is put forward for such change, there is no need for me to "prove", as distinct from assert, the basis of any counter-arguement I might respond with. I'm sorry to inform you of this, lads, but in most people's books, asserting the wonders of the market, when there is such an obvious and potentially large market failure operating in the defence case, does not constitute a strikingly credible argument. Richard Smart
| 
