On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> With regard to H. Judge G.'s first gratuitous argument, e does have a point
> that Agora could place limits on how arbitrary a
> party's constitutional amendment can be.
I got hung up on the word arbitrary. It's a strong word; to me it means, if I
can
think of a single example of a type of change that a rule set can't make, then
it
can't make "arbitrary" changes. But then I realized; one of Peter Suber's
fundamental questions was whether a nomic could ever make one of its's rules
completely immutable. He doesn't think it's answered whether this particular
"arbitrary" change could be made. So, by that criterion, Suber's original nomic
wouldn't be a nomic!
That's silly. So either arbitrary shouldn't be in that rule, or that word
doesn't
mean what I think it means. Probably both.
