Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull
From: jhull@spp2.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarianism: Anarchism, Schools, Defense, Society
Message-ID: <343@spp2.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 17:05:16 EST
Article-I.D.: spp2.343
Posted: Tue Jan  8 17:05:16 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 23:32:50 EST
References: <399@ptsfa.UUCP> <33@ucbcad.UUCP>
Reply-To: jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull)
Distribution: net
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 23
Summary: 

In article <33@ucbcad.UUCP> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP writes:
>
>	A "good" government is an entity which, with the consent and 
>	support of the majority of the people it governs, regulates
>	interactions between individuals for the "common good", and
>	regulates the actions of those people who are incapable of
>	being responsible for themselves.
>
Over and over I read "of the majority" and I get terribly disturbed by
the implication that the minority have no right to contest the will of
the majority.  Could we have some discussion of additional criteria?
For example, Robert Heinlein, in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress,"
offers for consideration a constitution which provides for 75% of the
vote to pass a law but only 25% to repeal it (the percentages may be
wrong, but the idea is correctly presented).  The point is, what is
really fair?

-- 
					Blessed Be,

 					Jeff Hull
 ihnp4!trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull		13817 Yukon Ave.
					Hawthorne, CA 90250