 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) I think I disagree, though I'd invite anyone to convince me. I think we should do away with all our laws, start over, and put everything up for straight democratic vote. And each and every law/issue would need 75% in favor in order to pass. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) I like the part about doing away with all our laws and starting over. There is a part of _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ where the professor is lecturing the constitutional convention and he is urging them to think out of the box on government (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) This does not make 100% sense to me - getting rid of a lot of laws only to referendum them back. Why not just Constitutional-ise referenda, and use them to remove/add laws? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) I asked about this before: (URL) I wanted to clarify your answer. Specifically, would you support "starting over" with new laws even if those laws ultimately conflicted (perhaps diametrically) with your own views? And, in addressing the 75% (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) I support the process, but reserve the right to bolt if I don't like the outcome... (...) This is my problem with this proposal as well. I think you have to have basic rights that are much harder to revoke than just majority rule. I've said it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) "Bolt" in what sense? "Support(ing) the process" entails living with the outcome (though I can understand moving to a different country). (...) Ancient Greece. Good example of the tyrany of the majority. I'm with you on this one. (...) And (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) In the "leave" sense not the "bolt action rifle" sense. If we get an actual majority to vote themselves bread and circuses in a fair and honest way, they are welcome to their little experiment, I'll vote with my feet. But what we have now, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) should (...) order (...) The reason that I think it makes sense is that if it took 75% of the people to agree, most of them wouldn't be voted back in place. We would have the obvious victimizations illegal and some meta-organizational issues (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat also covers some of this. For the full text of this AMAZINGLY concise and excellent work, see: (URL) I am sorry to go all "Scott Arthur" on y'all, but some of you really should read some of the primary texts (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) good to know of an electronic source. Bastiat is cited by a lot of other freedom thinkers. One issue that some will have is that his derivation of *why* people have the rights they do is pretty weak. I know it always comes up here if you just (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Well, every argument can be beaten down to some foundational principle that is a mere assertion that some may not agree with. I am not sure I have ever seen a philosophical argument that didn't ultimately break down that way. I'd be well (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Right. One good thing Scott did, long ago, was provide a link to David Friedman's(1) site, which among many other good things, provides a good example of how natural rights don't always work out, and then demonstrates how you can use a cost (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) I know this was a throw-away comment, but... One could be against the notion of ownership and still be reasonable in owning stuff under our current system. I know someone who thinks that we should accept that we are at best stewards of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) You know, I am willing to go a fair way down that road with your friend. Thinking of ourselves as stewards of things is not at all a bad idea. Welcome to the lending library of the flesh... -- Hop-Frog (anyone want my froggy skin when I am (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
OK, Rich, send me all your Lego ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
OK, Rich, send me all your Lego. After all, you don't OWN it ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Actually, the reason it *doesn't* make sense is that you require a 75% consensus. In a group of just 12 people it's hard to get 75% agreement on what kind of pizza to get; do you honestly expect that *any* issue, when put before a vote by the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) to (...) Sure. I don't want to invest a lot in defense of this system that I created in four seconds while reading the note before, but I do actually think that part of it has merit. I'm sure that 75% of us would agree that stealing and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
