You could say that something is a nomic if it could pass a law that says "<insert something here>"
On Jan 29, 2008 12:29 AM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 28 January 2008 11:07 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > > > In particular, governments > whose > > > constitutions provide for constitutional amendment are > nomics. > > > > Does that put England Right Out? For that matter, in spite of the > Articles > > of Federation, does enough of Canadian Law stem from English common law > that > > Canada is Right Out? Wikipedia: "The Constitution of Canada is the > supreme > > law in Canada; the country's constitution is an amalgam of codified acts > and > > uncodified traditions and conventions." > > > > -Goethe > > You know, I have no idea. > > I realize now that I am not up to writing (or, really, even drafting) this > definition. Between Steve Wallace and Canada, I think it's time we had a > proper definition of nomic; but I am simply not experienced enough to > think > of all the subtleties and intricacies involved. > > (This situation reminds me of when it first became apparent that a > definition > was needed for "person".) > > Please, help! > > > I would like to include as nomics: > -- Pen-and-paper nomics. > -- Email nomics. > -- Programming nomics. > -- Hybrid some-or-all-of-the-above nomics. > -- RL governments which have nomic-nature (allow self-amendment). > -- Contracts (Agoran and otherwise) which have nomic-nature. > (Including pledges, contests, and partnerships.) > > I would like to exclude: > -- First-class persons. > -- Implicitly renegotiable situations (eg, casual chess). > -- Pebbles. > -- Systems which provide only for limited self-amendment, such as > Fluxx. > > > ... ? > > > Pavitra > -- > If it turns out that only girls like [Legend of Lotus > Spring], I'm gonna go back to my bat-cave and cry. > Andrew Plotkin > -- -----Iammars www.jmcteague.com
