Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Hayek contends that liberty is indivisible: selective protection creates arbitrary state power over which activities count as sufficiently deliberative.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Some activities (fraud, coercion, incitement to violence) causally harm others in ways that justify differential legal treatment without arbitrariness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Absolute indivisibility is self-defeating: protecting liberty itself requires state restrictions on force, making some selective limitation logically necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Transparent legal standards and judicial review can meaningfully constrain arbitrariness in liberty protections without requiring blanket uniformity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.State agents lack neutral criteria for distinguishing 'sufficiently deliberative' activities, inevitably injecting subjective political preferences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Once state power selectively protects some liberties, bureaucrats gain discretionary authority to expand or contract protections based on changing political winds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Historical precedent shows governments use 'deliberation' standards to suppress unpopular speech, religious practice, and assembly selectively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.