Re: Information sheet thingie
Seth David Schoen (schoen@uclink4.Berkeley.EDU)
18 Dec 1997 10:20:29 GMT
Kevin Dempsey Peterson writes:
>Oh, yeah. I didn't want to mention the anti-democracy protest because
>it would take a long time to explain why we don't like democracy and
>what we have to replace it.
Good point.
>Incidentally, I'd love to know what can totally replace it. I'd like
>to see extreme restrictions on democracy, like a 75% majority to pass
>any law, and a more plainly worded constitution that can't be
>misinterpretted. (Although, "the right of the people to keep and bear
>arms shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear to me) I'm thinking
>along the lines of a layered system of laws, where one set, that can
>only be changed by *extreme* difficulty outlines how the second set is
>changed. The second set, which can be changed with about the
>difficulty of our current constitution, outlines what government
>agencies there are. The first set limits some powers, and says that
>other powers may be granted in the second set. The third set is done
>by a legislature, and is just normal criminal and bureaucratic law
>(with 75% majority). The second set of laws would specify that a bill
>presented to the legislature must do only one thing and so on.
We should really have a game of Nomic. Maybe I'll bring it up at the
next CalLib meeting.
>But, even if you limit it, it's still democracy.
Incidentally, your proposed changes (which I snipped) move closer to
direct democracy structually, but perhaps not procedurally. They do
create a presumption against any new law, which doesn't exist now, which
might be the main libertarian thing in favor of your changes.
--
Seth David Schoen L&S '01 (undeclared) / schoen@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Magna dis immortalibus habenda est atque huic ipsi Iovi Statori, antiquissimo
custodi huius urbis, gratia, quod hanc tam taetram, tam horribilem tamque
infestam rei publicae pestem totiens iam effugimus. -- Cicero, in Catilinam I