Originally Posted by MrFarFromRight
I - personally and generally - hate the idea of vetoes.
In what - not general case - would I be in favour of the right to veto?
I have given a lot of thought to the setting-up of communes. I have lived in several "communal houses" (not strictly communes) which had the rule: A person may be invited to stay here by any member of the household, but in case they want to move in and become a full house member with equal rights (and this meant equal
rights: no pulling rank, "because I've lived here longer than you have"), any
current full house member has the right to veto their admission.
I think that that's a fine
rule! (I've seen at least one case - where I wasn't a house member, but a close
friend-of-the-house, and was concerned about its happiness and stability - where 2 house members chose [against my spirited advice] not
to use their veto right [despite strong
misgivings about the applicant: they just didn't believe in vetoes]. The applicant was admitted and within a few months the house split into 3 antagonistic factions. Some people are just poison! [And some people don't recognise poison when they smell it...])