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
