The burden of proof in an argument refers to what each side has to prove in order to prevail. In the United States in a criminal case the prosecution must prove that the accused is guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”. In a civil case the party bringing suit must prove his or her case with a preponderance of the evidence.
In an argument the burden of proof falls mostly on whichever party is proposing a change from the status quo. If, instead of making a case for change, the advocate for change attempts to shift the burden of proof to the party defending the status quo, it is considered a logical fallacy. The proponent must make a case. Contrariwise it is sufficient for the opponent or counter-advocate to refute a case. And if the proponent fails to fulfill his or her burden of proof, the opponent must be considered to have the stronger case.
Today I’ve seen a number of posts on Social Security reform—Brad DeLong, Steve Verdon, and Josh Marshall all have recent posts on the subject. I posted a round-up of posts on Social Security reform here. Over the last week or so I’ve participated in debates of the comments sections of a half dozen or so blogs on the subject. And in most cases I’ve noticed the same thing: advocates are not meeting their burden of proof.
In general, for an advocate for change in the current Social Security system to meet his or her burden of proof the case must be made that
- There is a problem with the current system.
- The problem is a pressing problem i.e. the problem must be dealt with now.
- The proposed solution must actually address the problem that has been identified.
I haven’t seen many affirmative cases that do any of these things. Arguing that we should never have begun the Social Security system does not meet the burden of proof. Arguing that any proposed plan would be better i.e. cheaper, fairer, better secondary effect, etc. does not meet the burden of proof. Arguing that opponents of change have ulterior motives does not meet the burden of proof. Arguing that opponents of change don’t know what they’re talking about or have made mistakes does not meet the burden of proof.
Let’s have an honest discussion of this issue. If you’re an advocate for change—whether for partial privatization, complete privatization, or some other plan, make your case. Attacking the Social Security system isn’t enough.
1. There is a problem with the current system:
The ratio of workers to retirees is going down at an alarming pace, and benefits are rising at a rate that is not pegged to inflation. There is an opportunity cost to not changing, which you might ignore in your brushing aside with ” i.e. cheaper, fairer, better secondary effect, etc. does not meet the burden of proof”. That is a ridiculous method of argumentation. You have a qualitative measurement, “problem”, that can’t be fulfilled with quantitative numbers like ROI or a balance of payments argument? Ridiculous!
2. The problem is a pressing problem i.e. the problem must be dealt with now:
The solution is more appealing the earlier it is adopted. Does that count? I do not think status quo arguments apply here, because the government is already involved. Why not act to improve the status quo, if only marginally [though this improvement would be quite large]?
3. The proposed solution must actually address the problem that has been identified:
Pointing to liabilities that come into the regular budget is not a failing of privatization. The money is owed regardless. The problem is basically solved by having a greater burden on individuals for saving, which is good, and by the increased ROI from a privatized account.