reply to post by NeoVain
My sincere apologies. Perhaps I can answer your questions more appropriately, now that I understand your point of view more clearly.
How many agree? Obviously, if it is passed, then the majority of those we have chosen to make such decisions for us agree. If you would like the
State of Nevada, the US, and perhaps the world, to choose another system of governmental decision making that's a case that can be made, but I
didn't realize that was your wish.
Say it more simply? Generally, no. Some times it is possible and I heartily approve of that. Our legal system (properly) requires that the
foreseeable events in a law are covered, and that only the changes deemed necessary are made. It's a legal problem, sure, but laws by definition are
legal, and have to stand up to the attacks of lawyers and courts. Really, this is where "t" crossing and "i" dotting is essential.
Try it sometime with something simple like jaywalking. You have to define "intersection," whether it covers all roads that a vehicle could possibly
be on, time of day consideration, what the precise definition of an intersection is if it's not marked, whether a bicycle is covered, penalties,
enforcement authority, proof required to convict, whether the law can be modified by a city or county, how are parades and demonstrations handled,
exceptions for emergency personnel, the list goes on and on.
If it's passed, it will be printed in one color without strike throughs, etc. It will be as neat as they can make it.
Philosophy? Perhaps if you're thinking of political philosophy, ok. Again though, that was not what I understood that you wanted.
Again, my apologies.