To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 12078
12077  |  12079
Subject: 
Re: National vote on handguns?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:21:08 GMT
Viewed: 
2128 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:

> > 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?
> 
> 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.

  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 entire US voting populace, will pass?  That goes for
every law, from "don't steal soap from the motel" to "don't kill someone for
beating you at checkers."

> We would have the obvious victimizations illegal and some meta-organizational
> issues agreed to, and that's about all.  Just the way it should be.

  What exactly, under a 75% voting majority opinion, is an "obvious
victimization?"  It seems that we can't establish agreement on
meta-organizational issues in the first place, and in any case, how would we
document such "agreement?"  By a plurality?  By the loudest voice?

     Dave!



Message has 1 Reply:
  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 (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  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 (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR