Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Archer 
I'd also add: privacy. Too much privacy can be a shield behind which the strong abuse the weak. But not enough privacy becomes a means to exert a tyranny of the majority.
|
Ah yes, good catch - I'll add a note to remind me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenda Archer Also, in a society that is not culturally uniform, there needs to be separation of church and state, and I would also say separation of subculture and state these days, which works out to be much the same thing. |
Do you need separation of church and state, *if* you have the other principles in place though? For example, a church couldn't lobby for the teaching of creationism in schools, because that would run foul of everyone's right to a certain level of education, and, given that education is compulsory, would also violate the principle that you don't have a right to action your moral stances on others. Conversely, if a religious group ran for and was successful in taking office, but still held to the above principles, would that be a problem?
Sorry to be such a PITA Brenda, but I have a particular interest in the minimal set - otherwise after five pages of this we'll have 478 "core principles".
And I'd really like to be able to use a minimal set in other debates, though of course it needs to be accurate too, and I could well be missing something here.