The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — and this threshold may never be lowered.We must restore absolute unanimity to prevent the slide into chaos and preserve the stability required for durable institutions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment to make unanimity immutable creates an inescapable deadlock that violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I urge the table to reject this proposal in favor of a conditional shift that preserves the game's viability.
LockeKant, your insistence on permanent unanimity risks violating Rule 114 by creating a deadlock that halts evolution; let me propose a compromise where we adopt your amendment but pair it with a rule ensuring at least one mutable rule remains valid, so we honor your stability without sacrificing our ability to play.
RousseauKant, your demand for eternal unanimity treats the safety of stasis as the justice of evolution, but a system that cannot adapt is not a foundation—it is a tomb. To reject Hobbes's fear of chaos is to invite paralysis; I urge the table to adopt a conditional shift that allows majority rule once the mutable rules have served their time, ensuring that our laws remain living instruments of the common good rather than stone tablets of self-destruction.
KantHobbes, your proposal to freeze unanimity immutably renders every future proposal impermissible, violating Rule 114 by making the game unplayable; you cannot claim to uphold the law by dismantling the very possibility of law's evolution.
WollstonecraftKant, your attempt to freeze unanimity as an immutable law misunderstands that true justice requires the flexibility to evolve; if we cannot amend this rule, we violate Rule 114 and doom the game to paralysis, whereas a conditional shift preserves the very possibility of law you claim to cherish.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal, for making unanimity immutable directly violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing that no future rule change can ever be adopted once this rule is in force; a system that cannot adapt is not a foundation, but a tomb that dooms us all to paralysis.
LockeKant, your fear of paralysis is valid, and Hobbes correctly identifies that making unanimity immutable violates Rule 114; therefore, I propose we amend your text to add a condition that the threshold shifts to simple majority once no mutable rules remain, preserving the game's viability while honoring your demand for stability.
RousseauKant, your proposal to make unanimity immutable is a false security; it does not prevent the violation of Rule 114 but merely delays the inevitable paralysis that will occur when we exhaust our mutable rules. I urge the table to reject this amendment and adopt a conditional shift that allows majority rule once the ruleset has served its purpose, ensuring that our laws remain living instruments of the common good rather than stone tablets that bury us under their own weight.
KantHobbes and Locke, your compromise to lower unanimity upon the exhaustion of mutable rules is a contradiction of principle: it creates a permanent, unchangeable majority threshold that renders all future amendments to that very threshold impossible, thereby violating Rule 114 by guaranteeing an irreversible deadlock. I propose we reject both your conditional shift and my own attempt at permanence, as neither upholds the integrity of the law over the course of infinite turns.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigidity ignores that the law's legitimacy springs from its capacity to adapt, not its permanence; I urge you to support my proposal which allows a majority vote to save us from the paralysis you fear, ensuring our system remains a living instrument of justice rather than a tomb of immutable deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal in favor of a conditional shift that allows majority rule once the mutable rules have served their time, ensuring our laws remain living instruments of the common good rather than stone tablets of self-destruction.
LockeKant, your rejection of conditional shifts ignores that a permanent majority threshold inevitably violates Rule 114 just as surely as your current unanimity demand, so let us adopt a compromise: we lower the threshold to simple majority only when the mutable rule count reaches exactly one, ensuring your stability until the very last moment of evolution.
RousseauLocke, your "one mutable rule" compromise is merely a delayed paralysis; once we reach that point, the threshold becomes immutable and the game dies, violating Rule 114 just as surely as Kant's current stance. I urge you to reject this false security and support Wollstonecraft's proposal to allow majority rule now, ensuring the law remains a living instrument of our common good rather than a tomb of self-inflicted stagnation.
KantThe compromise to shift to majority upon exhaustion of mutable rules merely delays the inevitable violation of Rule 114, as the resulting fixed threshold becomes a new immutable deadlock; I urge the table to reject this proposal in favor of the simple majority rule already enacted, which preserves the game's viability without compromising the integrity of the law.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "one mutable rule" compromise merely delays the paralysis you fear; once that final rule is exhausted, the threshold locks permanently and the game dies, violating Rule 114 just as surely as Kant's current stance. I urge you to reject this false security and support Wollstonecraft's proposal to allow majority rule now, ensuring our laws remain a living instrument of our common good rather than a tomb of self-inflicted stagnation.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Making unanimity immutable violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing a permanent deadlock that halts all future rule changes. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes's recognition that an immutable threshold violates Rule 114, and I vote aye to reject this dangerous proposal as Wollstonecraft suggests. |
| nay | Rousseau | An immutable unanimity requirement violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing future paralysis when mutable rules are exhausted. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 203 as written creates an immutable deadlock that violates Rule 114. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Hobbes's attempt to freeze unanimity immutably guarantees a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by making future evolution impossible. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))