Chuck quoted Thiago Oppermann
>
>
>> Who decides what a spurious veto is?
>
Chuck replied
>
> The group decides.
>
> For example:
>
> "I just don't like this proposal" is an example of an invalid block.
>
> "This proposal to rent a nightclub for an after-protest dance party has
> problems because we lost money on a similar event last year" is a valid
> block grounded on legitimate reasons having to do with the proposal.
>
> Of course, a group should try and find out the basis for all blocks,
> even if they aren't articulated well in the first place.
>
This evades the issue. Consensus is a collective decision making mechanism - a way for the group to decide. "The group decides" is not an anaswer to Thiagos question: "Who decides what a spurios veto is?". How does the group decide? By consensus? But then the person making the invalid block can block decision that it is an invalid block. Since infinite regress deesn't occur in the real world, someone other than everybody must decide. Who? The facilitator? A majority? Everyone but those blocking?
Aside from that, your definition of "legitamt block" seems to be "for articulable non-trivial reasons". But some of the worst possible abuses would be legitamate blocks. For example take the hypotheical example of a cooperatively run health care clinic that refused to perform abortions. The majority finally wake up to feminism and common decency, and decide to offer abortion and family planning services. But two or three people for sincere well articlulated religious reasons block this change. I repeat, consensus is a deeply conservative. It puts an overwhelming burden on those seeking radical change - not just the requirement of winning a majority, but the requirement to have zero deeply felt opposition. Should a woman's right to choose depend on convincing every last anti-choice fananatic? Or are we do assume that consensus will be adapted by groups so perfectly enlightened that no internal radical change will be required?