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