Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
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.
|
You seem to have missed some of my point, so I'll reiterate.
First - the background checks that you all seem to feel are horrible invasions of privacy can be performed easily, quickly, and WITHOUT your consent, should someone choose to do one.
So, that said, the sanctioning body asking you to fill out a form that allows them to do something they can already do is most certainly not infringing on your liberty.
And it then follows - since the mere asking of your consent for something they don't need your consent for in the first place does not infringe on your liberty at all, the side benefit of possibly chasing away a true offender is a positive that has no negative.