Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!rdh
From: rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Forcing people to ...
Message-ID: <2451@sun.uucp>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 21:54:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.2451
Posted: Fri Jul 19 21:54:16 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 21:51:50 EDT
References: <1619@dciem.UUCP> <2380095@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 16

If political debates produced useful information, new approaches, or
reasonable discourse, perhaps people would WANT to watch them.

Frankly, any competition between one professional rhetorician's 
dogma and another's is something that we all could live without.

I wonder how you all would feel about a decision-making system in which
no one was FORCED to participate, no one was PREVENTED from participating, but
in which everyone who DID participate would have veto power over decisions.

This is a theoretical question.  Could such a thing work from a theoretical 
standpoint. If so, HOW?  If not, WHY not?

One obstacle I see is the issue of jurisdiction.  Is it possible in such a 
system to allocate areas in which different rules (laws) apply?  If so, how
can borders be agreed upon shy of war?