The burden of proof in politics

[Masterhawk]

Science can do many things but one thing it cannot do is prove a universal negative. This is why there is something called the burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on the person who makes a positive claim. A positive statement is an affirmative statement about something (ex: the cat is grey) as opposed to a negative statement which counteracts a positive one (ex: the cat is NOT grey). To illustrate why the burden of proof rests on the one making a claim, a man by the name of Bertrand Rusell used an analogy. He stated that there's a Chinese teapot somewhere in between the orbits of Earth and Mars. Since there's no evidence AGAINST such a teapot, provided that it's too small to be detected by even the best telescopes, it only stands to reason that such a teapot exists. This is not to say that no claim can be proven. Rather, each claim must at least have some evidence to be taken seriously.

This concept isn't unique to the scientific community, it can be found in the American justice system. The burden of proof rests on the prosecutor. In civil courts, the evidence has to point towards guiltiness being more likely than innocence for a conviction. Criminal courts take it a step further, even further than the scientific community. In order to get a guilty verdict, the evidence pointing towards the guiltiness of the defendant must be beyond a reasonable doubt. You may have heard of this as the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

Now you might be wondering how this concept can apply to the political world. Well, laws that extend the government are based on the claim that government should do _____. Likewise, the people who say that government is too big espouse the belief that the government should NOT do _____. For example, the concept of single payer healthcare is based on the idea that the government should cover the costs of all patients, this is a claim that must be justified. Each government policy must have a justification. In addition to this, there must be evidence that said policy works. For example, if welfare does not actually reduce poverty, then welfare should be eliminated. In this regard, the negative effects of a policy should be taken into account. For example, the massive increase in incarceration can be attributed to "tough on crime" policies like three strikes and you're out and mandatory sentencing. And lastly, each government policy must do its job better than the free market. If the free market can do it better than government, that policy should be eliminated. Back to my example on universal healthcare, if the reason why American healthcare is expensive is because of overregulation, then the solution is to remove these regulations, this would actually save money and there would be no need to worry about politicians slashing funding or waiting times.

tldr version: For the sake of avoiding arbitrary laws, the burden of proof shall rest on the person seeking to increase the outreach of government whether it be increasing government spending, implementing gun control laws, waging a war on drugs or terror, raising the minimum age for X, or implementing any regulation.
The default side for the scientific community is the one making the claim.
The default side for the justice system is innocence.
The default side for the political community should be libertarianism.

Scale regarding economic policy:

Here's a general guide on the burden of proof regarding economic policy. Higher numbers have to produce better results than lower numbers. Subsidization, regulation, and public alternative can be combined, resulting in a higher number.

complete deregulation: 0

subsidization: 1

regulation: 1

public alternative: 1

government granted monopoly: 4

full blown nationalization: 5

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I agree about burden of proof, but one of the problems is different sides disagree about what the goals are as much as they disagree about what best accomplishes those goals. For example, you stated if welfare doesn’t decrease poverty then it should be eliminated. That makes sense if the goal of welfare is to reduce poverty. But I imagine a lot of people also believe the purpose of welfare is to minimize the hardship of people already in poverty. And a program could do that without actually reducing the number of people in poverty.

 

[Angel]

Every claim and counterclaim must be supported.

 

[soylentgreen]

Science can do many things but one thing it cannot do is prove a universal negative. This is why there is something called the burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on the person who makes a positive claim. A positive statement is an affirmative statement about something (ex: the cat is grey) as opposed to a negative statement which counteracts a positive one (ex: the cat is NOT grey). To illustrate why the burden of proof rests on the one making a claim, a man by the name of Bertrand Rusell used an analogy. He stated that there's a Chinese teapot somewhere in between the orbits of Earth and Mars. Since there's no evidence AGAINST such a teapot, provided that it's too small to be detected by even the best telescopes, it only stands to reason that such a teapot exists. This is not to say that no claim can be proven. Rather, each claim must at least have some evidence to be taken seriously.

This concept isn't unique to the scientific community, it can be found in the American justice system. The burden of proof rests on the prosecutor. In civil courts, the evidence has to point towards guiltiness being more likely than innocence for a conviction. Criminal courts take it a step further, even further than the scientific community. In order to get a guilty verdict, the evidence pointing towards the guiltiness of the defendant must be beyond a reasonable doubt. You may have heard of this as the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

Now you might be wondering how this concept can apply to the political world. Well, laws that extend the government are based on the claim that government should do _____. Likewise, the people who say that government is too big espouse the belief that the government should NOT do _____. For example, the concept of single payer healthcare is based on the idea that the government should cover the costs of all patients, this is a claim that must be justified. Each government policy must have a justification. In addition to this, there must be evidence that said policy works. For example, if welfare does not actually reduce poverty, then welfare should be eliminated. In this regard, the negative effects of a policy should be taken into account. For example, the massive increase in incarceration can be attributed to "tough on crime" policies like three strikes and you're out and mandatory sentencing. And lastly, each government policy must do its job better than the free market. If the free market can do it better than government, that policy should be eliminated. Back to my example on universal healthcare, if the reason why American healthcare is expensive is because of overregulation, then the solution is to remove these regulations, this would actually save money and there would be no need to worry about politicians slashing funding or waiting times.

tldr version: For the sake of avoiding arbitrary laws, the burden of proof shall rest on the person seeking to increase the outreach of government whether it be increasing government spending, implementing gun control laws, waging a war on drugs or terror, raising the minimum age for X, or implementing any regulation.
The default side for the scientific community is the one making the claim.
The default side for the justice system is innocence.
The default side for the political community should be libertarianism.

Scale regarding economic policy:

Here's a general guide on the burden of proof regarding economic policy. Higher numbers have to produce better results than lower numbers. Subsidization, regulation, and public alternative can be combined, resulting in a higher number.

complete deregulation: 0

subsidization: 1

regulation: 1

public alternative: 1

government granted monopoly: 4

full blown nationalization: 5

What a complete load of crap.


Reading that makes me understand a little better why american politics is among the worst example of politics i have come across.

Politicians are there to represent the will of the people not make the decisions for them based loosely on which ever scientist they have in their pocket. What a ridiculous way to set policy by just pretending your cause has more science to back it and ignore the views of those who actually elected them into office.

 

[Masterhawk]

Every claim and counterclaim must be supported.

So does the counterclaim that there isn't an invisible unicorn watching over us have to be supported?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I agree about burden of proof, but one of the problems is different sides disagree about what the goals are as much as they disagree about what best accomplishes those goals. For example, you stated if welfare doesn’t decrease poverty then it should be eliminated. That makes sense if the goal of welfare is to reduce poverty. But I imagine a lot of people also believe the purpose of welfare is to minimize the hardship of people already in poverty. And a program could do that without actually reducing the number of people in poverty.

There are a lot of terms not defined.
When someone says, "And lastly, each government policy must do its job better than the free market. If the free market can do it better than government, that policy should be eliminated.", there must be some agreed upon definitions of "doing it better".

If the free market winds up being able to supply healthcare cheaper, (which it has yet to ever do) but the mortality rate skyrockets or massive utilization of spending caps and treatment caps leads to millions of people being DENIED CARE, are we still "in agreement" about what the word "better" really means?
I ask this because health insurance profit in the free market is derived from DENIAL of CARE, and that's not me speaking, it's people like former CIGNA executive Wendell Potter, just as one example.

So, using a concept based on profit oriented health care to define "doing a job better" is a bit of a sick joke. One cannot define "better" strictly in terms of costs, and health care isn't like car insurance. People can live without cars. They can't live without health care, not for very long anyway.

Therefore, universal access to health care should not ever be defined in profit terms when determining costs.
Thus the default side for the political community should NOT BE "libertarianism".
Nobody gave libertarianism the exclusive right to be the arbiter of truth, "their truth".

And by the way, with regard to the current climate in health care:

I'd like to see just one of these right wing moguls explain to us why what we're doing right NOW IS affordable (which it isn't) and why they are sure it will remain affordable (which it won't) or at the very least, prove that it will NOT become even MORE unaffordable. (which it most definitely WILL)
If they could prove that what we are doing RIGHT NOW will become substantially CHEAPER in the next ten years, I will eat a MAGA hat dipped in poodle piss.

 

[Masterhawk]

What a complete load of crap.


Reading that makes me understand a little better why american politics is among the worst example of politics i have come across.

Politicians are there to represent the will of the people not make the decisions for them based loosely on which ever scientist they have in their pocket. What a ridiculous way to set policy by just pretending your cause has more science to back it and ignore the views of those who actually elected them into office.

I'm not claiming that any particular ideology is correct. What I am trying to say is that any public policy needs to be justified. And the laws need to be working toward their intended effect. Otherwise, we end up with arbitrary laws that don't get us anywhere.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

There are a lot of terms not defined.
When someone says, "And lastly, each government policy must do its job better than the free market. If the free market can do it better than government, that policy should be eliminated.", there must be some agreed upon definitions of "doing it better".

If the free market winds up being able to supply healthcare cheaper, (which it has yet to ever do) but the mortality rate skyrockets or massive utilization of spending caps and treatment caps leads to millions of people being DENIED CARE, are we still "in agreement" about what the word "better" really means?
I ask this because health insurance profit in the free market is derived from DENIAL of CARE, and that's not me speaking, it's people like former CIGNA executive Wendell Potter, just as one example.

So, using a concept based on profit oriented health care to define "doing a job better" is a bit of a sick joke. One cannot define "better" strictly in terms of costs, and health care isn't like car insurance. People can live without cars. They can't live without health care, not for very long anyway.

Therefore, universal access to health care should not ever be defined in profit terms when determining costs.
Thus the default side for the political community should NOT BE "libertarianism".
Nobody gave libertarianism the exclusive right to be the arbiter of truth, "their truth".

And by the way, with regard to the current climate in health care:

I'd like to see just one of these right wing moguls explain to us why what we're doing right NOW IS affordable (which it isn't) and why they are sure it will remain affordable (which it won't) or at the very least, prove that it will NOT become even MORE unaffordable. (which it most definitely WILL)
If they could prove that what we are doing RIGHT NOW will become substantially CHEAPER in the next ten years, I will eat a MAGA hat dipped in poodle piss.

I agree 100%. I feel the same about private prisons as well. I don't care if they can do the job cheaper if they don't also produce a lower recidivism rate.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I agree 100%. I feel the same about private prisons as well. I don't care if they can do the job cheaper if they don't also produce a lower recidivism rate.

Recidivism is their stock in trade.
Once you're IN the private corrections system, all kinds of post-discharge fines and fees are levied on you, even after you get out, and if you don't pay them, and pay and pay and pay, you're right back in jail again. There's fines and fees for anything and everything imaginable, it's like being stuck in a payday loan hamster wheel where the juice is still running even if you're down to the last ten dollars on the loan, a week goes by and BLAMMO, suddenly you owe 430 dollars again.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm not claiming that any particular ideology is correct. What I am trying to say is that any public policy needs to be justified. And the laws need to be working toward their intended effect. Otherwise, we end up with arbitrary laws that don't get us anywhere.

Like which arbitrary laws? And what defines, "not getting anywhere"?

 

[Angel]

So does the counterclaim that there isn't an invisible unicorn watching over us have to be supported?

If there is no reason for a claim, and therefore no support for a claim, it's a baseless claim.

 

[soylentgreen]

I'm not claiming that any particular ideology is correct. What I am trying to say is that any public policy needs to be justified. And the laws need to be working toward their intended effect. Otherwise, we end up with arbitrary laws that don't get us anywhere.

Yes i could agree with that but not your idea that science is the basis here.

Politicians should be using evidence based reasons rather than appeal to emotion which is what they more often do.

But in americas case that is not enough or will ever be done with a corrupt political system you have. Having both a first past the post election system combined with a secretive government that does not have to reveal their books means that politicians can and will say whatever they want because there is not the ability to fact check them.

 

[Masterhawk]

There are a lot of terms not defined.
When someone says, "And lastly, each government policy must do its job better than the free market. If the free market can do it better than government, that policy should be eliminated.", there must be some agreed upon definitions of "doing it better".

If the free market winds up being able to supply healthcare cheaper, (which it has yet to ever do) but the mortality rate skyrockets or massive utilization of spending caps and treatment caps leads to millions of people being DENIED CARE, are we still "in agreement" about what the word "better" really means?
I ask this because health insurance profit in the free market is derived from DENIAL of CARE, and that's not me speaking, it's people like former CIGNA executive Wendell Potter, just as one example.

So, using a concept based on profit oriented health care to define "doing a job better" is a bit of a sick joke. One cannot define "better" strictly in terms of costs, and health care isn't like car insurance. People can live without cars. They can't live without health care, not for very long anyway.

Therefore, universal access to health care should not ever be defined in profit terms when determining costs.
Thus the default side for the political community should NOT BE "libertarianism".
Nobody gave libertarianism the exclusive right to be the arbiter of truth, "their truth".

And by the way, with regard to the current climate in health care:

I'd like to see just one of these right wing moguls explain to us why what we're doing right NOW IS affordable (which it isn't) and why they are sure it will remain affordable (which it won't) or at the very least, prove that it will NOT become even MORE unaffordable. (which it most definitely WILL)
If they could prove that what we are doing RIGHT NOW will become substantially CHEAPER in the next ten years, I will eat a MAGA hat dipped in poodle piss.

In a sense, you are right about one thing: health care is an inelastic market (price changes don't change demand that much). But gasoline is also an inelastic market and yet you generally don't see price gouging. An inelastic market can avoid price gouging so long as it's competitive. The oil market is competitive (even when 81.5% of proven oil reserves are in OPEC countries) but the healthcare market isn't. One of the reasons why is because of mandated employer insurance. The practice of employer health insurance originated from WW2 as a result of wage controls. Somewhere down the line, it became a mandate.

Here's an article on the least profitable industries:
13 Least Profitable Industries for Small Business Owners

There are two areas that really drew my attention. The first is that medical equipment is overpriced but most of the profit goes to hospitals and insurance companies (indicating that they are not simply high in demand and low in supply). The second (and probably more important) point is that home healthcare services (for the elderly) is not very profitable. The reason for this is because of price limitations instituted by medicare and major insurance companies. The low rates of return lead to a shortage of workers in this profession. Already, we're seeing a potential problem with single payer healthcare. If price controls are implemented on healthcare officials, it may lead to a shortage and therefore, wait times (Canada has problems with this).

A likely major culprit of rising healthcare costs is that the AMA has lobbied the US government to heavily regulate the healthcare industry, one of which is limiting the number of residencies (postgraduate training) it funds (as of 2009, it's at 100,000 per year), leading to a shortage in physicians.
The Evil-Mongering Of The American Medical Association

Foreign doctors have to redo their residencies and exams to practice in the US, regardless of how long they have been practicing in their origin country. The business of midwifery is outlawed or tightly regulated in 36 states.

The US and Canada may have different problems regarding healthcare but they are caused by the same thing: a shortage in doctors.

The point I want to leave you with is that there's always the seen and the unseen. Whenever someone points out a problem and gives their solution, always double check them to see if there are any missing pieces such as what really caused the problem in the first place. Make no mistake, the US healthcare system needs reform, but the solution may not necessarily be what you think it is.

 

[Masterhawk]

Like which arbitrary laws? And what defines, "not getting anywhere"?

I may be doing a thread on how laws can be justified in the near future.

stay tuned

 

[OrphanSlug]

While there is merit to the idea of defining and applying weight to “proof” we have a harsh reality.

Just about every principle of governance is based on ideological perception of a wrong or subject, and what the means is to an answer. Even when statistics and empirical data can be applied we still see significant effort to determine when to apply them. It clouds all intentions to apply any sort of standard when burdening governance with standards of evidence, proof, or any means behind the debate.

This is all aside from the general ideology for economics, sociology, and governance behind party politics only made worse by interests and means of influence.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

A likely major culprit of rising healthcare costs is that the AMA has lobbied the US government to heavily regulate the healthcare industry, one of which is limiting the number of residencies (postgraduate training) it funds (as of 2009, it's at 100,000 per year), leading to a shortage in physicians.
The Evil-Mongering Of The American Medical Association

Foreign doctors have to redo their residencies and exams to practice in the US, regardless of how long they have been practicing in their origin country.

I am in and out all day today but I had to respond to this first...

Do you actually think that US doctors are upset that there is a shortage, and that it is all the fault of the AMA?
It is going to take a little while for me to dig up the report I once read on the subject but just speaking as a person who has probably filmed well over three hundred TV ad spots for urgent care clinics, telehealth associations, and private medical practice corporations, it's an open secret that US doctors think that the doctor shortage in this country is just fine and dandy.
Their big beef is the cost of their malpractice insurance, and the fact that the typical private practice physician requires at least four or more clerical staff to handle the medical coding and the amount of insurance paperwork pouring in.

In fact, when the telehealth industry first appeared, most doctors lobbied ferociously against it because despite the fact that it was useful in easing the shortage somewhat, at least for minor medical issues, it constituted what they initially perceived as a threat.

---A Dallas television news story about Teladoc, a startup telehealth corporation, starring my wife



One of my first ad promos for Teladoc, which was featured on their website and as a part of Teladoc infomercial materials



And finally, the battle to kill telehealth still rages on.
The Texas Medical Board (TMB) has been mired in a long-standing lawsuit with Teladoc over regulations restricting the practice of telemedicine.



Texas isn't the only state fighting telehealth and other measures aimed at easing the doctor shortage. A total of 27 states prohibit or severely restrict telemedicine and telehealth operations altogether right now.

Guess where telehealth is currently THRIVING?
The Veterans HealthCare System, that's where...partly in response to news stories like the one my wife participated in.

 

[Masterhawk]

I am in and out all day today but I had to respond to this first...

Do you actually think that US doctors are upset that there is a shortage, and that it is all the fault of the AMA?
It is going to take a little while for me to dig up the report I once read on the subject but just speaking as a person who has probably filmed well over three hundred TV ad spots for urgent care clinics, telehealth associations, and private medical practice corporations, it's an open secret that US doctors think that the doctor shortage in this country is just fine and dandy.
Their big beef is the cost of their malpractice insurance, and the fact that the typical private practice physician requires at least four or more clerical staff to handle the medical coding and the amount of insurance paperwork pouring in.

In fact, when the telehealth industry first appeared, most doctors lobbied ferociously against it because despite the fact that it was useful in easing the shortage somewhat, at least for minor medical issues, it constituted what they initially perceived as a threat.

---A Dallas television news story about Teladoc, a startup telehealth corporation, starring my wife



One of my first ad promos for Teladoc, which was featured on their website and as a part of Teladoc infomercial materials



And finally, the battle to kill telehealth still rages on.
The Texas Medical Board (TMB) has been mired in a long-standing lawsuit with Teladoc over regulations restricting the practice of telemedicine.



Texas isn't the only state fighting telehealth and other measures aimed at easing the doctor shortage. A total of 27 states prohibit or severely restrict telemedicine and telehealth operations altogether right now.

Guess where telehealth is currently THRIVING?
The Veterans HealthCare System, that's where...partly in response to news stories like the one my wife participated in.

The healthcare industry in the US is more heavily regulated than many single payer proponents think it is. Every group in America has its self interest, this is true of both workers and business owners. An artificially low supply of sellers drives up the price (workers supply labor and their bosses are consumers).

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The healthcare industry in the US is more heavily regulated than many single payer proponents think it is. Every group in America has its self interest, this is true of both workers and business owners. An artificially low supply of sellers drives up the price (workers supply labor and their bosses are consumers).

We're not talking about the amount of chocolate in your chocolate milk.
That statement makes no sense, it's just a wide sweeping generalization, like saying that "California has a lot more rain than most people think".

OR

"The Sun actually does shine in London"