There are two approaches to law – Public or " the charged has to prove innocence" and"private or the prosecutor has to establish guilt". Further adjectives can be invented and applied to both - beyond-reasonable-doubt, by-preponderance-of-evidence, not-unusual, not-usual, under-preponderance-against and under-reasonable-against”
I argue that ideological insistence on one ideology is stupid and unnecessary. I WANT my judge to be Public in justice and in fact most government servants, experts and choosers. I also consider my privacy important as in opt-in and opt-out debate. I want to be treated as private when faced by law-enforcement, my landlord etc. It is a matter of role, not the person. A judge, government servant etc have private lives too.
A dysfunctional big brother society of 1984 takes public to undesirable extreme. Very private societies are unbearably corrupt. A mix is needed as in all aaqgs-recognised dilemma in which factors that argue for one or another are considered and strict ideological positions are abused.
Empirically, cause-effect patterns are Public if they are or can be imposed like a judge, policemen or tax-collector, or assumed like a doctor, sales recommend er etc . They are all authority figures, by rules or assumption This is distinct from those providing us with requested optional service considered our equals or inferiors. One expects those in authority to have a Public modus operand-ii, while privacy for servers is all right. Fake service sets will catch the corrupt in both classes with statistical certainty.
No comments:
Post a Comment