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!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!sun!rdh
From: rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Forcing people to ...
Message-ID: <2555@sun.uucp>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 18:51:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.2555
Posted: Fri Aug  2 18:51:46 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 10:45:12 EDT
References: <1619@dciem.UUCP> <2380095@acf4.UUCP> <2451@sun.uucp> <210@pedsgd.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 30

> >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?
> >
> 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. 

Here's where the rhetoricians come in.  If murder isn't illegal, then you
just go and kill all advocates of murder who are serious enough to veto a
proposal against it! :-)

> who proposes legislation in the first place? Everybody? And how
> long do you wait before you decide that everyone has agreed?

Well folks?  Any ideas for a reasonable procedure for setting agendas and
polling for a response?  How about Usenet? :-)

> I think you need to flush this out some more before we can discuss it.
> Bob Weiler.

I thought net.politics.theory was for thrashing these things out!  Where
are all you free market advocates and libertarians.  Let's put our practice
where our theory is!
-bob.