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!)