This is an interesting topic because I've seen the notion of arbitrary in a variety of topics from my study into metaphysics, up into politics. A notion put forward is that arbitrary concepts can't be rational. The unspoken premise being those rational concepts are exact, concise, and not up to interpretation. For example, a square is a polygon of four equal sides and four equal angles. It's not like we'll be discussing whether a circle could apply. I won't discuss it here, but there are arguments around square being arbitrary - at least the way it is applied. There are two examples I wanted to focus on, one from metaphysics and the other in law: The concept of bald The age of majority The Concept of Bald Bald is hairless where there is normally hair, in this case, we'll speak of the top of the head. Questions: How little hair should one have? None? Half? Is there an actual quantity one has to fall below to be bald? What separates a bald person from a balding
The official website of NoLasagna, the most prominent anti-Libertarian handle on the internet. I fight for Capitalism, Science, Reason, and Individual Rights.