"problematic at worst" would be more accurate, IMO.
You have a point in this sense: Consistency has value, in that it allows people to plan and build for the future. Unnecessary changes of law should be avoided for this reason.
However, that's a very weak argument for preserving the consistency of *wrong* or *bad* law. Only if the wrongness or badness of the law in question is quite mild, should anyone be swayed by this line of reasoning, IMO.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2011-12-23 22:49 (UTC)You have a point in this sense: Consistency has value, in that it allows people to plan and build for the future. Unnecessary changes of law should be avoided for this reason.
However, that's a very weak argument for preserving the consistency of *wrong* or *bad* law. Only if the wrongness or badness of the law in question is quite mild, should anyone be swayed by this line of reasoning, IMO.