Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site deepthot.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!deepthot!julian From: julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Doing only that which brings the most profit. Message-ID: <361@deepthot.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 16:29:15 EDT Article-I.D.: deepthot.361 Posted: Mon Aug 20 16:29:15 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 21-Aug-84 07:13:58 EDT References: <8700@watmath.UUCP> Organization: UWO CS, London Canada Lines: 19 - From: idallen@watmath.UUCP - I don't see any "fundamental" difference between the majority forcing - me not to kill my fellow humans and the majority taking my money to - benefit my fellow man. Is there an alternative to majority rule? Just for the record, there *is* an alternative to majority rule, which can claim to be better. It has been used in the Religious Society of Friends for several centuries (also known as Quakers). That method of reaching decisions can claim successes such as (for example) an agreement on the wrongness of slavery long before any other significant political or religious organization agreed on that. For details, visit your local Friend's Meetinghouse. If you are wondering why the Quaker approach hasn't been widely used, the reason could be partly that it demands from participants the willingness to respect other people and listen to their contributions, and not insist on sticking to preconceived positions. This doesn't seem to go over too well with politicians, or anyone with an 'axe to grind'. Julian Davies