5 ms·

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.