|
'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, including the existence of holes in the ground, paying people to have babies, drought, breast cancer, litter, the winds that blow, the rate of humidity, who lives where and does what - in fact, everything. You are defending the status quo with an assertion, namely, that you and 'most people' know that there would be a market failure if defence were left to the market. What you're not saying, is how you know. And how do you know that 'most people' know? The onus of proof in rational argument is usually on the person making the assertion. *We already know* what the status quo is: the question is what is the justification, if any. You have not shown any. The line of argument you have taken about the onus of proof is simply evasion. It shows that, when challenged to do something other than make appeal to absent authority, your fall back position is circular argument.
| 
