[lbo-talk] Re: Let Us Be Glad It Is Hard to Amend the Constitution

BklynMagus magcomm at ix.netcom.com
Fri May 19 09:01:26 PDT 2006


Dear List:

Tayssir writes:


> I suspect we're allowed to vote on it so that liberals
can shake their heads about the need to constrain the irrational masses, much like Bernays wanted.

I think containing irrationality and promoting rationality are two very good things.


> (And of course, some just dispense with general terms
like democracy, and use more specific ones like "participatory self-management," which means having the ability to participate in decisionmaking in roughly the proportion you're affected by it.)

I have always liked that idea. Why should hets even have a say in the matter -- it does not affect them. Same with reproductive rights -- why should men get a vote on what a woman is or is not allowed to do with regard to her body?

Also, Lani Gurnier (I think) had the idea that a super majority should be required when legistlation is being considered that would limit or eradicate the rights of a particular minority.

Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister (who is marrying TJ on June 10th in Montreal since the popular will forbids him from doing in own city. Gotta love it!)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list