rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (07/20/85)
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?
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (07/22/85)
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.
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (07/23/85)
In article <2451@sun.uucp> rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) writes: >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. In general, I think decisions should be based on the participation of all interested parties, but by interested I usually mean those who would be affected by the outcomes of decisions. Being affected by the outcome of a decision has no necessary relationship to wanting or not wanting to participate. So I tend to think that systems based on the decisions of people who want to participate are arbitrary, since they don't include all interested parties in decision-making. As to the veto power clause, I agree with some writers who say that one purpose of the state is to prevent "tragedies of the commons" -- where many rational individual decisions lead to disaster for all. A decision- making system where everyone had veto power would still allow these bad group consequences to occur, since free riders could always veto action. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman) (08/03/85)
> >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.