"Why should we allow it?"

You'll often hear the question: "Why should we allow x?" What's implied by this question is the right to restrict the action of others - that the person asking is somehow fit to impose barriers on others and hinder their access to living life by their terms. It assumes the other party must justify their right to exist and live and act. It's the outlook of a tyrant.

A better question is: "Why should we not allow x?" This seems subtle, but the difference is significant. Now the proof is turned to the blocker. The barrier is not assumed to be right or proper - it must prove itself by some suitable ground or be stricken. There are barriers and punishments that can be justified (punishments for murder and theft, for example), so this does not preclude their existence.

It demands that whoever wants to control the life of another must have a better reason than, "I don't like it." A reason that can withstand intense scrutiny and questioning. This is the outlook of someone who believes in allowing humans to live as they will, at least so far as they don't violate the rights of others.

So whenever you hear someone say, "But why should we allow that person to do that/own that/express that?" remember to turn it back on them and force them to justify why they think it ought to be restricted in the first place. Because the burden of proof is always on the one who seeks to control.