6 ms·

>The Supreme Court found that adults have a "fundamental right to the free development of the personality" without interference from the state. "That right is n

>The Supreme Court found that adults have a "fundamental right to the free development of the personality" without interference from the state. "That right is not absolute, and the consumption of certain substances may be regulated, but the effects provoked by marijuana do not justify an absolute prohibition of its consumption," the ruling read. What a bunch of lawless nonsense for a high court to be engaged in. This might be good policy, but the more ominous implication is what it means for the judiciary to be substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature, based on indeterminate legal theories about “fundamental rights” invented out of thin air.

krapp 8y ago
All "fundamental rights" are invented out of thin air. Neither physics nor nature recognizes such "rights" as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property rights, what have you.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  It’s not about physics or nature, but legal enactment. Constitutions are full of fundamental rights that have proper, lawful pedigree. The U.S. Bill of Rights, for example, was debated vigorously in Congress, passed by supermajorities in each house, and ratified by the people.
- dionidium 8y ago
  Isn’t that implicitly an argument for keeping the surface area of fundamental rights small?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Isn’t that implicitly an argument for keeping the surface area of fundamental rights small? It is at least one premise short of a basis for such an argument: P1. All “fundamental rights” are products of human invention not found in nature. P2. ? C. Therefore, the number of fundamental rights on which a social system rests should be kept small.
    - dionidium 8y ago
      P2 is something like, “It’s difficult to get country-sized populations to agree on products of human invention.” I’m also implying a P3 that looks something like this: “Widespread agreement on the question of what exactly are the fundamental rights is a necessary condition for the survival of a nation.” This is sort of an argument of the form, “make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > I’m also implying a P3 that looks something like this: “Widespread agreement on the question of what exactly are the fundamental rights is a necessary condition for the survival of a nation.” That doesn't seem to be true in practice. It may be a desirable (either fundamentally or instrumentally to some other desired quality result) condition in a nation, but plenty of nations have survived an extended period despite fairly durable disagreements on the nature and scope of fundamental rights.

krapp 8y ago

All "fundamental rights" are invented out of thin air. Neither physics nor nature recognizes such "rights" as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property rights, what have you.

marcoperaza 8y ago
It’s not about physics or nature, but legal enactment. Constitutions are full of fundamental rights that have proper, lawful pedigree. The U.S. Bill of Rights, for example, was debated vigorously in Congress, passed by supermajorities in each house, and ratified by the people.
dionidium 8y ago
Isn’t that implicitly an argument for keeping the surface area of fundamental rights small?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Isn’t that implicitly an argument for keeping the surface area of fundamental rights small? It is at least one premise short of a basis for such an argument: P1. All “fundamental rights” are products of human invention not found in nature. P2. ? C. Therefore, the number of fundamental rights on which a social system rests should be kept small.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    P2 is something like, “It’s difficult to get country-sized populations to agree on products of human invention.” I’m also implying a P3 that looks something like this: “Widespread agreement on the question of what exactly are the fundamental rights is a necessary condition for the survival of a nation.” This is sort of an argument of the form, “make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I’m also implying a P3 that looks something like this: “Widespread agreement on the question of what exactly are the fundamental rights is a necessary condition for the survival of a nation.” That doesn't seem to be true in practice. It may be a desirable (either fundamentally or instrumentally to some other desired quality result) condition in a nation, but plenty of nations have survived an extended period despite fairly durable disagreements on the nature and scope of fundamental rights.