Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcrowder
You think someone who has already been guilty of acts that one would expect to find on a background check might be a little reluctant to sign the form? You betcha. If a nationwide request for umpires/coaches to allow background checks eliminates just a single perpetrator from getting into a position of authority over young kids, it's worth it.
|
Given my earlier defense of Sen. McCarthy, my reply to this may surprise some. I find this reasoning justifying a specific loss of liberty to be one of the most dangerous tendancies of our modern American outlook.
Individual liberty is sacrosanct. Compromizing on liberty to protect "just one" innocent leads directly to totalitarianism. Why do you think the burden is so high on the state to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Why do you think there are provisions that ban double jeopardy, restrict police searches, restrict police interrogation, provide for the right to an attorney?
Further, the notion that one should volunteer information to the state because one has "nothing to hide" is, again, on the direct path to totalitarianism. One should be free to require the state to live up to its burden of just cause before information can be demanded or searches performed.
I realize that softball sanctioning organizations are not "the state." I was commenting on the general justification / rationalization.