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 The incoherence of legislative behavior extends to the level of institutional and constitutional design.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Constitutional moments, as Ackerman argues, involve extraordinary politics where citizens transcend ordinary self-interest through deliberative mobilization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The conditions of constitutional founding differ structurally from routine legislation, making interest-group capture empirically and theoretically less likely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Madison's Federalist No. 51 demonstrates that constitutional designers explicitly anticipated factional incoherence and engineered structural remedies against it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's veil of ignorance models a real epistemic condition present at founding moments when future political positions are genuinely uncertain to framers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When designers cannot reliably predict which coalition will benefit from constitutional rules, self-interest loses determinative power over constitutional choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The logic that explains incoherence in legislative behavior applies equally to the agents who draft constitutions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Constitutional designers, like legislators, have political and economic interests that shape their decisions.
      ?

      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.