>> Wrong. There is a form of nocoercive government. It is called a
>> hyperdemocracy. In a hyperdemocracy, it isn't one man, one vote, its one
>> man, one veto. Thus, nobody can be coerced into anything, as all it takes
>> to stop a new law is one veto against it. What is required to make such a
>> system work over the long term is that a) the original Constitution be set
>> up such that it guarrantees maximum functional freedoms to everybody
>> equally, but b) also give effective mechanisms for people to pursue
>> remedies to intrusions into their freedoms by others. It should recognise
>> the market as the ultimate arbitrator of cost and value, and should set
>> some basic rules for the organization of cooperative organizations of
>> individuals such that they don't violate individuals freedoms, inside or
>> outside the organization. The articles in such a document should be vague
>> enough in general areas to allow for new technologies or cultural changes
>> without need for revision, but also be specific enough in the freedoms area
>> such that violators cannot dissemble and fudge the facts, and should be
>> clear enough about what is considered coercive government such that
>> individuals can easily take private legal action against the government.
>> The government should be subject to its own laws.
>> Mike Lorrey
>So one industrial polluter can veto all environmental laws and one
>sexist/racist/ageist/religiobigot can veto all civil rights and equal
>access laws. Joe
And, more importantly, one anarchist can veto all of the laws at once. This is just anarchy. Not that I'm OPPOSED to anarchy, (I'm an anarcho-capitalist, too,) but calling it "hyperdemocracy" makes it sound like it's something it's not.
-GIVE ME IMMORTALITY OR GIVE ME DEATH-