Wants, needs and logical fallacies

One of the worst logical fallacies that turns an argument upside down is when one side of the discussion attempts to shift the burden of proof away from where it belongs. If you can get away with it you gain the upper hand.

For example, if I ask a woman why she needs so many pairs of shoes and she tries to justify her need for them, I’ve won the argument. No woman will accept that premise, however. In fact, I will likely have lost by making such an foolish attempt. She doesn’t have to justify to me how many pairs of shoes she owns. Rather, the burden of proof that she owns too many pairs of shoes is on me. It’s my burden to justify why I am asking the question in the first place. It’s probably an impossible burden for me to meet. Keeping the burden to justify the premise of my question where it belongs completely ends the discussion in this case.

So it is with Constitutional rights. Especially those that are considered to be “natural” rights, i.e., rights that every human being is born with, rights that come from God, if you’re a believer. [See below for Colorado Supreme Court discussion of natural rights] Natural rights are the basis for our Declaration of Independence. Natural rights were the premise of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England. No one has the right to demand we justify our natural rights, least of all the government. Rather, the burden is on the government to justify any limitation it places on our Constitutional rights.

The mother of all natural rights is the right to life. Every living thing wants to continue living as long as it can, and will fight with all its might against whatever threatens its life. Any government attempting to place limitations on anyone’s right of self defense should have a near insurmountable burden to justify what it does.

Billy Johnson explains:

Natural Rights: The Colorado Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to defend oneself is a natural right: “The right of self-defense is a natural right and is based on the natural law of self-preservation.” Vigil v. People, 143 Colo. 328, 353 P.2d 82 (1960).

Nor is “Stand your Ground” anything new: “The defendant, if he did not provoke the assault, is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose, and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking human life. Boykin v. People, 22 Colo. 496, 45 P. 419 (1896); Enyart v. People, 67 Colo. 434, 180 P. 722 (1919).