>But let me just offer one non-partisan "meta-value" that underlies much of
>the law of evidence. Time and judicial resources are limited and disputes
>must be resolved within a *reasonable* amount of time. Thus, there *have*
>to be at least some limits on the evidence that can be presented at a trial.
> Believe me, if the parties to a case were allowed to say everything they
>could think of in support of their positions, nothing would ever get
>resolved. Consider that "unrestricted access to all information" is
>problematic in this important respect, if for no other.
IAN: Good point, the defense could call in people to testify until the
end of time and thus stop his client from going to the electric chair.
Of course, the meta issue regarding time is that a huge amount of court
time is devoted to the enforcement of unjust laws -- laws that prohibit
consensual activity -- at a great cost to society. If we had a libertarian
situation, 90% of current 'court time' would be freed up to cases involving
violence and property violations.
Law of Identity: A is A, relative to not-A. A = (A + ~A)
Law of Nonidentity: If there is 100% A, there is 0% A. A = ~A
absolute reality: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/reality.html