Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Sean Hunt wrote:
>> I submit the following proto-proposal, entitled {Constitutional
>> Anarchy}. Its adoption index is 3, its interest index is 3.
> What's the ultimate goal of all this?
>
>> The rights and freedoms granted by this rule do not create allow
>> any actions to be taken, even if those actions would be necessary
> "create allow" is surely a mistake. Perhaps "create the possibility
> for"? Or did you mean "create the possibility for or legality of"?
Create is a mistake, just strike it.
>> Each Rights Board contains one or more
>> biological players (its members).
> You're duplicating code from the definition of first-class persons, and
> also dropping some useful text from there. Better all round just to say
> "one or more first-class players".
I'm hesitant to make the highest-power rule in the game rely on a
lower-power one.
>> to prevent future violations of the same nature from occuring in
> occurring
>
>> A proposal submitted as part of a judgment for a qestion of remedy
> question
>
>
> I haven't looked carefully to see how much duplication/integration this
> has with the judicial system in general.
>
>
> All round... I dunno. What's the point?
To make rights actually mean something.
