Summary
The text discusses the concept of community standards in relation to good faith terminations, obscenity laws, and aggregation rules for judgments represented as intervals. It explores how endpoint rules can effectively aggregate individual preferences while maintaining strategyproofness and neutrality.
Highlights
- Terminations of good faith reference community standards of decency and fairness.
- Obscenity can be criminalized based on contemporary community standards despite free speech protections.
- Community standards are dynamic and can change over time.
- Endpoint rules aggregate judgments using lower and upper endpoints independently.
- Strategyproofness is achievable under certain preference restrictions, such as single-peaked preferences.
- The median rule is a well-defined aggregation method even without a median judgment.
- Generalized single-peaked preferences allow for effective aggregation of intervals.
Key Insights
- Community Standards: These are crucial for determining acceptable behavior and can evolve, reflecting societal changes. This adaptability is essential in legal contexts, especially regarding free speech and obscenity laws.
- Endpoint Rules: By focusing on endpoints rather than pointwise aggregation, endpoint rules provide a robust framework for collective decision-making, allowing for the representation of diverse preferences.
- Strategyproofness: The conditions under which aggregation rules can be strategyproof highlight the importance of preference structures, ensuring that individuals cannot manipulate outcomes to their advantage.
- Single-Peaked Preferences: This concept simplifies the aggregation process by ensuring a unique preferred interval, thus facilitating more coherent group decisions.
- Median Rule: Its existence in the context of interval judgments demonstrates that effective decision-making can occur even in complex scenarios where individual preferences lack a clear median.
- Generalized Preferences: The introduction of generalized single-peaked preferences expands the applicability of aggregation rules, accommodating a wider range of judgments and preferences.
- Liberalism vs. Democracy: The analogy drawn between consent rules and endpoint rules suggests a spectrum of decision-making approaches, balancing individual liberties with collective governance.
Mindmap
If MindMap doesn't load, please try refreshing the page.
Citation
Miller, A. D. (2025). The limits of tolerance (Version 1). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2501.00578