Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pedsgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!pedsgd!bob
From: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Forcing people to ...
Message-ID: <210@pedsgd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 13:05:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: pedsgd.210
Posted: Mon Jul 22 13:05:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 02:36:48 EDT
References: <1619@dciem.UUCP> <2380095@acf4.UUCP> <2451@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler)
Organization: Perkin-Elmer, Tinton Falls, NJ
Lines: 40
Summary: 

Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ
Keywords: 

In article <2451@sun.uucp> rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) writes:
>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.
>

But reading amateurs rehetoric on usenet is indispensible. :-)

>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?
>
At last someone posts something that doesnt have anything to do with
liberterianism. I tried, but failed with my suggestion of a government
of hired professionals. Now on to the matter at hand.

How? I suspect we are pretty close to being able to do this through
the phone system, ala 900 numbers.  Practically, I suspect that
with veto power, no laws would ever be passed. This may be the best
bet, but I dont think so because any person who was inclined towards
murder could simply veto any suggestion that it be illegal. If
we use a majority vote to decide, we end up with democracy. Also,
who proposes legislation in the first place? Everybody? And how
long do you wait before you decide that everyone has agreed?
>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?
We sort of do this in the US by having states, so yes it is possible. Im
not sure its a good idea though, becuase it makes it tougher to move around.
I think you need to flush this out some more before we can discuss it.

Bob Weiler.