# The ethics of majoritarianism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2005, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-majoritarianism/289564 "2005-02-11T11:57:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-majoritarianism/289564/181 "2005-02-21T17:08:59Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I don’t know why you keep on repeating this when it simply is not true. Libertaria will produce a conflict of wills (by your definition) each time it imposes itself on a non citizen. That’s like saying that a tuning fork will produce silence each time it is struck. LG doesn’t impose itself on _anyone_, citizen or not. > [@](#): > > I don’t? Why exactly were the British in control of the Americas? It is becuase they were the superior military force defeating the indigenous population, France and Spain for supremecy. Well, I just asked the Redcoat we have quartered upstairs, and he says you’re missing the big picture. > [@](#): > > History has many more examples of the superior force winning the war. Empires are not made with a weak military. Even granting you that for the sake of argument, you’re ruining your own case. If people form armies and go around building empires, then that is definitively not libertarian. Therefore, your assertion that libertarian societies would do that falls flat. > [@](#): > > And I am pretty sure its you. Why didn’t you say that to start with? Why all this catty word play? Have you decided that whatever I write, you will begin by disagreeing? > [@](#): > > Becuase might does not make right. I agree. But according to you, he was free to choose. Therefore, no one exercised their might against him. > [@](#): > > Sure I can. If I were the owner of Pearle Vision or LensCrafters I would have hired better lawyers to research all of the laws. 😃 What a joke! Say, have you done a detailed analysis of Pearle Vision? Do you know exactly what it is they have done and how you would improve it? I want that answer right away. That’s in reference, of course, to your demand that I provide you detailed economic analysis of Libertaria, a hypothetical entity. And you cannot even provide detailed analysis of a real place that you fancy you could run better than its present officers. > [@](#): > > Like I’ve said a million times those 8 words don’t tell me anything. How would LensCrafters or Pearle Vision have known that their actions were illegal? They have no binding precedent to look at. In fact even if there are 15 rulings supporting what they did there is no garuntee that the 16th won’t sentence them all into slavery for that act. Their actions wouldn’t even BE illegal unless they used deception or force in their practices. > [@](#): > > I’ll see what I can find about the Federal level. > > [http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw111995\_20050220.htm](http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw111995_20050220.htm) > [http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/2A73645A100E958386256FAD0055B593?OpenDocument&Headline=Reality+may+stymie+desired+effects](http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/2A73645A100E958386256FAD0055B593?OpenDocument&Headline=Reality+may+stymie+desired+effects) > [North County](http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/02/20/opinion/editorials/18_20_252_19_05.txt) > > There are 3 as opposed to none that I could look at in Libertaria. Oh, please. One of those was an op-ed piece, and none of them provided the content of any law, regulation, rule, order, or ordinance. I’ll ask you once again to answer the question. You have claimed to have ready access to any law, regulation, rule, order, or ordinance on the books. Tell me what they are. And you already know Libertaria’s. You even just said how many words it is. > [@](#): > > Sorry buddy his resisting arrest consisted of throwing a fire cracker at officers and struggling when they tried to take him into custody. > > [Flag burning a guaranteed right of all citizens (Barf Alert)](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/540555/posts) > > And as Dewey said when he sues the government he has a slam dunk case. Isn’t this exactly what would happen in Libertaria? Man is wronged and Man sues the government. Another opinion piece, and this time from a right-wing gossip rag. But I already said he’d likely get around the flag burning, but he’s still stuck with resisting. What you claimed was that people aren’t “punished” for burning the flag. If being arrested and dragged to jail with trumped up charges of resisting isn’t punishment, then why are you bitching in the other thread about being arrested by Libertarian enforcers? And what about the dozens of other cases I linked you to? They are compiled by people who _support_ illegalization of flag burning. They’re _bragging_ about harassing people like Mr. Stout. > [@](#): > > From your own little blurb “The men were charged with disorderly conduct, endangering other people, reckless burning and criminal mischief.” Seems about right for burning something in the middle of a rally. Really? Perhaps you’re just disagreeing to disagree. I mean, if he were burning charcoal and fixing people hamburgers, would your reasoning still apply? Haul his ass away and charge him with all that crap? > [@](#): > > Gee I wonder why you didn’t quote the next line “The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.” You will of course by taking 30 seconds and reading as much as I did that the police did in fact respond to the call but a mistake was made in the communication. You will also notice that the statement “Their repeated calls went unanswered” is a falsehood. There were two calls made to 911 both answered and one was investigated with the officer knocking on the door. Unanswered in the sense of unfulfilled, and you knew that was what I meant. Even the portion you quoted proves what I said. You, _as an individual_, have no right to protection. Too bad for the ladies, I reckon, that they were not “the public at large”. > [@](#): > > You really think that any Libertarian government will take on that responsibility of protecting each individual citizen? That is a recipie for bankrupting your country real quick. It is impossible to protect every individual citizen as you surely know from your careful analysis of the cases you are citing. The most disingenuous statement from you yet. This entire discussion, from the get-go, is premised on the 8 words that you so often reference: “_Every citizen_ shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion.” Why are you just now making such an argument? If you held the position genuinely, it would have been your first. > [@](#): > > What about the situation when you don’t know for certain that the person is guilty? Who is initiating the force when Libertaria knocks down his door and points a gun at his face? For the umpteenth time, it does that only when it knows for certain that the person is guilty. > [@](#): > > If you are so concerned about your window wouldn’t it behoove you to build a fence around your property? What window? What are you talking about? > [@](#): > > That issue has been addressed already. Namely that it certainly is a weakness of a majoritarian system that is why every majoritarian system builds in protections for the minority. 😃 Cite? > [@](#): > > I am afraid you are the one skirting the issues. You did not even attempt to ethically justify why it is ok for me to damage your property by actions on mine. What the…? It is never okay for you to damage my property, unless you are acting in response to my initial force. Period. > [@](#): > > By the way you should really take Dewey off of your ignore list he has made some excellent posts in this thread. It is against board policy to discuss who is on our ignore lists. Incidentally, you made no comment whatsoever about the definition of “will”. Did you read any of the material? Am I again wasting (an awful lot of) time with you? You promised a good faith discussion if I resumed communications with you. Honor your word, or else I will honor mine. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-majoritarianism/289564/182 "2005-02-21T18:39:06Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > That’s like saying that a tuning fork will produce silence each time it is struck. LG doesn’t impose itself on _anyone_, citizen or not. Let me ask you this. You subscribe to Libertaria and I don’t. You accuse me of a crime. Which judicial system will I be tried under mine, or Libertaria’s? > [@Liberal](#): > > Their actions wouldn’t even BE illegal unless they used deception or force in their practices. And what is constitutes deception or force? What ever some guy decides. > [@Liberal](#): > > Really? Perhaps you’re just disagreeing to disagree. I mean, if he were burning charcoal and fixing people hamburgers, would your reasoning still apply? Haul his ass away and charge him with all that crap? Gee burning charcoal in a grill, flaming piece of cloth on the end of a 5 foot stick in the middle of a crowd, charcoal in a grill…, flaming piece of cloth…, charcoal in a grill… flaming piece of cloth. Nope can’t see any difference there. > [@Liberal](#): > > Unanswered in the sense of unfulfilled, and you knew that was what I meant. Even the portion you quoted proves what I said. You, _as an individual_, have no right to protection. Too bad for the ladies, I reckon, that they were not “the public at large”. Perhaps you are using a philosophical definition of unanswered here too but answering the phone and sending an officer constitutes answering the call. Unfortunately they fucked up and something horrible happened to these women. Its nice to see you are taking full advantage. > [@Liberal](#): > > For the umpteenth time, it does that only when it knows for certain that the person is guilty. I don’t see how you aren’t understanding this. Libertaria is not omniscient it does not know for certain if anyone is guilty. Let me go ahead and quote for you what you said is necessary for a search. > [@Liberal](#): > > The question then arises, how far may enforcers go in ascertaining truth? May they go into someone’s home and search? That depends upon how the investigation is conducted. Suppose, for example, that the enforcers ask the defendant whether he has the stolen goods hidden in his home. If the defendant answers, “No,” then the plaintiff has the right to determine whether the defendant is initiating deception in his response, which would itself be a coercion. The defendant’s house may then be searched, based on his response. Now if you think that can be classified as Libertaria knowing “for certain that the person is guilty” then I am afraid we have a drastically different definition of certain. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5824529&postcount=4](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5824529&postcount=4) > [@Liberal](#): > > Incidentally, you made no comment whatsoever about the definition of “will”. Did you read any of the material? Am I again wasting (an awful lot of) time with you? You promised a good faith discussion if I resumed communications with you. Honor your word, or else I will honor mine. You certainly wasted an awful lot of time by using a different definition of a word then clearly everyone else was using. Everyone else was clearly using the definition of a ‘desire for a course of action’ but for some unbeknownst reason you decided to use a different one. > [@Liberal](#): > > What a joke! Say, have you done a detailed analysis of Pearle Vision? Do you know exactly what it is they have done and how you would improve it? I want that answer right away. That’s in reference, of course, to your demand that I provide you detailed economic analysis of Libertaria, a hypothetical entity. And you cannot even provide detailed analysis of a real place that you fancy you could run better than its present officers. > [@](#): > > Business and Professions Code section 655 prohibits an optical retailer and optician from any “proprietary interest, co-ownership, landlord-tenant or profit-sharing arrangement.” > > Another statute, Business and Professions Code section 2556, prohibits an optician from having an optometrist “on or near the premises used for optical dispensing … for the purpose of any examination or treatment of the eyes.” From a layman’s perspective that is a pretty clear law and from what I undersand of Pearle Vision’s business practice its obvious they are in violation. > [@Liberal](#): > > Oh, please. One of those was an op-ed piece, and none of them provided the content of any law, regulation, rule, order, or ordinance. I’ll ask you once again to answer the question. You have claimed to have ready access to any law, regulation, rule, order, or ordinance on the books. Tell me what they are. And you already know Libertaria’s. You even just said how many words it is. Fine read the federal register for yourself. [http://www.access.gpo.gov/su\_docs/fedreg/frcont05.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/frcont05.html) > [@Liberal](#): > > I agree. But according to you, he was free to choose. Therefore, no one exercised their might against him. You are the one saying that he is free to choose and it his fault for choosing wrong. Somehow this is supposed to justify giving him absolutely no rights under your judicial system. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-majoritarianism/289564/183 "2005-02-21T19:09:09Z")
I’ll try to add more later when I’m not so jammed up, but this just begs for rebuttal: > [@Liberal](#): > > Well, I just asked the Redcoat we have quartered upstairs, and he says you’re missing the big picture. Well, I just asked Admiral Comte de Grasse and General Comte de Rochambeau, and they say you’re omitting some important historical details. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-majoritarianism/289564/184 "2005-02-21T19:30:37Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Let me ask you this. You subscribe to Libertaria and I don’t. You accuse me of a crime. Which judicial system will I be tried under mine, or Libertaria’s? Mine if I can prove to the satisfaction of the arbiter that you’re guilty. I don’t care about your system. It is of no concern to me. > [@](#): > > And what is constitutes deception or force? What ever some guy decides. Well, sure. 😃 That line of argument is just so hillarious. You’re willing to trust career politicians who can make laws on a whim to do exactly what you’re saying that a man with no legislative authority whatsoever ought not be trusted to do. It’s madness, I tell you! > [@](#): > > Gee burning charcoal in a grill, flaming piece of cloth on the end of a 5 foot stick in the middle of a crowd, charcoal in a grill…, flaming piece of cloth…, charcoal in a grill… flaming piece of cloth. Nope can’t see any difference there. What if the grill gets knocked over? A bunch of people’s feet would get burned, wouldn’t they? > [@](#): > > Perhaps you are using a philosophical definition of unanswered here too but answering the phone and sending an officer constitutes answering the call. Unfortunately they fucked up and something horrible happened to these women. Its nice to see you are taking full advantage. If you are arguing that the police responded in a timely fashion considering the circumstance of torture and multiple rapes in progress, then I’m afraid your disingenuousness has sunk to new lows. I mean, here you are defending the hassling of flag burners and trivializing the plight of women in fear for their lives. All to avoid conceding a minor point. Holy cow. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how you aren’t understanding this. Libertaria is not omniscient it does not know for certain if anyone is guilty. Let me go ahead and quote for you what you said is necessary for a search. I spoke too soon. That’s lower yet. I didn’t provide there a description of what is necessary for a search. That was a description of how a deliberate deception might be coercive. > [@](#): > > Now if you think that can be classified as Libertaria knowing “for certain that the person is guilty” then I am afraid we have a drastically different definition of certain. Actually, the example I gave of certainty was satellite photos. In fact, I gave it repeatedly. Curiously, your search powers failed you in that regard. > [@](#): > > You certainly wasted an awful lot of time by using a different definition of a word then clearly everyone else was using. Everyone else was clearly using the definition of a ‘desire for a course of action’ but for some unbeknownst reason you decided to use a different one. Gah. Don’t they have books where you are? I mean more than 20 pages and without pictures? Didn’t you know that ETHICS is a branch of philosophy before you jumped in here? > [@](#): > > From a layman’s perspective that is a pretty clear law and from what I undersand of Pearle Vision’s business practice its obvious they are in violation. That’s just it. You don’t understand squat. You’re not a lawyer. And you haven’t the time or means to find the laws. You even make the extraordinarily daft claim that you could do better than the CEO and all his lawyers. Oy. > [@](#): > > Fine read the federal register for yourself. > > [http://www.access.gpo.gov/su\_docs/fedreg/frcont05.html](http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/frcont05.html) Sorry, Charlie, but that’s only a tiny, miniscule portion of what I asked you for. And much of it is irrelevant. (When the Ecological Research Subcommittee will meet is not a law.) If you can’t provide what I asked for, just say so. > [@](#): > > You are the one saying that he is free to choose and it his fault for choosing wrong. Somehow this is supposed to justify giving him absolutely no rights under your judicial system. Giving? He DOESN’T WANT them. Do you understand what “free choice” means? And incidentally, do we or do we not have an agreement on what we mean by will. If you do not intend to return to a discussion about the ethics of majoritarianism, I do not intend to entertain your massive hijack any further. I’m sure you will console yourself that having the last word will signal your victory, but I’m just going to wait until someone comes along who is interested in the topic. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-majoritarianism/289564/185 "2005-02-21T20:18:10Z")
Another quickie rebuttal: > [@Liberal](#): > > Sorry, Charlie, but that’s only a tiny, miniscule portion of what I asked you for. And much of it is irrelevant. (When the Ecological Research Subcommittee will meet is not a law.) If you can’t provide what I asked for, just say so. Your original question was: > [@Liberal](#): > > What are the laws, regulations, executive orders, statutes, and ordinances that were made last week? The Federal Register is where such things promulgated by the federal government are published every day. At least insofar as the feds go, he has indeed answered your question – and answered it with precision. If you’d like to know where to find that information with respect to other jurisdictions, name the jurisdiction. It’s a bit silly to ask someone to post a comprehensive set of resources covering all fifty states and every municipality in the United States. ([Findlaw.com](http://Findlaw.com) is a good place to start, though). ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-majoritarianism/289564/186 "2005-02-21T21:05:44Z")
**Lib** , you’re trying to run this debate unfairly. In your very first response to me in this thread, you wrote > [@](#): > > After all, if A imposes his will on B, then B is not free to exercise his own will. Likewise, if B imposes his will on A, then A is not free to exercise his own will. So, my question is, why must there be a process to determine how best to compromise the will of one or both? Why not simply a process that ensures each may exercise his own will without imposing upon the will of the other? It is pretty clear, even to people that don’t know you, that the system you’re suggesting here is libertarianism. You’re asking me why not use that system instead. Unfortunately, I’m not allowed to answer because then I’m not talking about majoritarianism anymore but libertarianism. So, if we run this debate according to your desires, every argument ends when you say “why not do it this way instead?” and we cannot answer without going off-topic, according to you. Can you see why trying to hold the majoritarianist side of such a debate would be futile and impossible? If you didn’t mean to constrain the debate in this way, what kind of answer were you expecting to the question “Why not simply a process that ensures each may exercise his own will without imposing upon the will of the other?”? How could I possibly answer that question without talking about the process you suggest? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2005, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-majoritarianism/289564/187 "2005-02-21T21:49:38Z")
quick reply before I scurry off to class. > [@Liberal](#): > > Giving? He DOESN’T WANT them. Do you understand what “free choice” means? Are you saying that everyone should pay every government on earth if they do not wish to be tortured? Regardless that does not make it right nor ethically acceptable to torture someone just becuase they haven’t paid your fee. > [@Liberal](#): > > And incidentally, do we or do we not have an agreement on what we mean by will. If you do not intend to return to a discussion about the ethics of majoritarianism, I do not intend to entertain your massive hijack any further. I’m sure you will console yourself that having the last word will signal your victory, but I’m just going to wait until someone comes along who is interested in the topic. Sure if you want will to mean that then we shall use that definition. Which word shall we use for ‘desire for a course of action’? Once you decide go ahead and replace ‘will’ in each of my posts and (without speaking for them of course) everyon elses post but yours. Then let us continue the debate. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-majoritarianism/289564/188 "2005-02-22T01:08:17Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Mine if I can prove to the satisfaction of the arbiter that you’re guilty. I don’t care about your system. It is of no concern to me. And if I don’t consent to your system [drum roll] I am being coerced into it. > [@Liberal](#): > > Well, sure. 😃 That line of argument is just so hillarious. You’re willing to trust career politicians who can make laws on a whim to do exactly what you’re saying that a man with no legislative authority whatsoever ought not be trusted to do. It’s madness, I tell you! They cannot make laws on a whim they need to first get a majority in the house, next get a majority in the Senate and then have the President sign the bill into law. I get to vote for each of the ‘career politicians’ so there are three chances I have to influence that law. I also have the protection of the constitution so that they may not enact laws that violate said constitution. Like I and many other people have said nobody thinks this system is perfect or even can qualify as ‘good’ but its the best we have. > [@Liberal](#): > > What if the grill gets knocked over? A bunch of people’s feet would get burned, wouldn’t they? Lets try this again. Flaming piece of cloth in the middle of a crowd… charcoal in a grill… Flaming piece of cloth… charcoal in a grill. Nope can’t possibly see how one of those is reckless while the other isn’t. Its fairly amusing that you are making this argument immediately after calling mine ‘hillarious’. > [@Liberal](#): > > If you are arguing that the police responded in a timely fashion considering the circumstance of torture and multiple rapes in progress, then I’m afraid your disingenuousness has sunk to new lows. I mean, here you are defending the hassling of flag burners and trivializing the plight of women in fear for their lives. All to avoid conceding a minor point. Holy cow. Which minor point am I avoiding conceding? My original point was that concentrating the power to go to war, interpeting the law, investigating people, trying people, convicting people, sentencing people when you continually point out the failure of governmental employees does not make sense. Your response: The police don’t actually have to protect you. By making them liable for protecting you I am building more safeguards in. You have not built anymore safeguards into the system. All you have allowed me to do is sue after Libertaria makes a mistake. Which if the mistake is going to war against a more powerful country won’t do me a whole lot of good when I am conquered. > [@Liberal](#): > > I spoke too soon. That’s lower yet. I didn’t provide there a description of what is necessary for a search. That was a description of how a deliberate deception might be coercive. That is odd becuase in your very next post after \*\* Martin Wolf \*\* asked for clarification you did not take that oppurtunity to correct him. In fact you responded it a way at least to this doper to suggest that \*\* Martin Wolf \*\* was correct in his analysis. > [@Liberal](#): > > Actually, the example I gave of certainty was satellite photos. In fact, I gave it repeatedly. Curiously, your search powers failed you in that regard. I am sorry friend but you used that example to illustrate when Libertaria might go to war. > [@Liberal](#): > > If A proves, for example, to the satisfaction of the arbiter, that B has stolen his car, with or without B’s cooperation, (suppose, for example, there are satellite images) then the arbiter may authorize (and in fact, must authorize) a military invasion of B’s property to confiscate the car. If B has a government, then what to do about that is its problem. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5827648&postcount=13](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5827648&postcount=13) > [@Liberal](#): > > Gah. Don’t they have books where you are? I mean more than 20 pages and without pictures? Didn’t you know that ETHICS is a branch of philosophy before you jumped in here? A little personal insult nice. When they taught me to read they told me when a word has multiple definitions to use the context of the sentence to determine the meaning. It is clear from reading everyones posts that they were using the ‘desire for a course of action’ definition of ‘will’. You are the one that should have adapted and used the definition everyone else was using or clearly stated you were using a different meaning. A page and a half of this thread could have been avioded if you did. > [@Liberal](#): > > That’s just it. You don’t understand squat. You’re not a lawyer. And you haven’t the time or means to find the laws. You even make the extraordinarily daft claim that you could do better than the CEO and all his lawyers. Oy. Well that crack team of lawyers and the CEO apparently missed the fact that they were told they were told to cease violating this law as recently as 1993. For some reason they have chosen to violate this law again and are now being prosecuted. I can safely say that I would have done better as a CEO than violate the same law we did a decade ago. If I were a lawyer for Pearle Vision I certainly would have advised the company not to violate the same law they did a decade ago. > [@Liberal](#): > > Sorry, Charlie, but that’s only a tiny, miniscule portion of what I asked you for. And much of it is irrelevant. (When the Ecological Research Subcommittee will meet is not a law.) If you can’t provide what I asked for, just say so. Give me the jurisdiction and I will see what I can do. I have already provided the Federal level ones tell me which state and county you would like and I bet I could find those. This of course is ignoring that the media commonly reports on new laws that will greatly affect the populus. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ethics-of-majoritarianism/289564.md?page=9)