[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3tkj69y0][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":3tkj69y0]Again, I get the feeling that trying to help you understand another point of view is a waste of time. [/quote:3tkj69y0]
Are you [i:3tkj69y0]seriously[/i:3tkj69y0] suggesting that you posting is a waste of time unless I end up agreeing with you? Why should I agree with you if you are wrong? Why is it any more a waste of time that I do not capitulate to your position than that you do not capitulate to mine?[/quote:3tkj69y0]
I didn't say posting was a waste of time unless you agreed with me. I said posting feels like a waste of time unless you understand me. There is a lot of room for disagreement when people feel at least understood.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3tkj69y0][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":3tkj69y0]The crux of your argument seems to be that "This is already decided. Over and done with. Move on." But numerous people disagree with the way things are going, as evidenced by the formation of the Simplicity Party, posts in the forum, and the polls at http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=440 and http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=534 that show more people want change than like the current system. [/quote:3tkj69y0]
Neither the manifesto of the Simplicity Party or either of the polls has anything to say about judicial selection. What your point is, therefore, I have no idea. Did you even read "on stability"?[/quote:3tkj69y0]
I read it when you originally wrote it. However, referencing something else you have written is not an appeal to authority that has any merit. It's not as if your previous posts are Scripture, or even high-level political treatises.
It seems true that you have no idea what my point is. That is why I wrote earlier that I feel misunderstood by you. All I can say is, think a little harder, perhaps try to think as if you were approaching the topic for the first time, as an outsider. You may begin to understand.
[quote:3tkj69y0]The next elections are going to be in January. As I have posted elsewhere, having started writing the Code of Procedure shortly after the Judiciary Act was passed, I am now more than two thirds done with it. We will be able to have cases presented in our courts well before January.
Furthremore, the fact that our judicial system is not fully functional is [i:3tkj69y0]more[/i:3tkj69y0], not less of a reason not to change it so soon after it has been established, since, until it is functional, there will not be any data upon which to base any evaluation of how it is performing that might show that decisions taken in its establishment were either wrong or right.[/quote:3tkj69y0]
The comparison could be made to the "Star Wars" defense program of the Reagan era, which could certainly not be judged on its effectiveness, but could be judged on what a waste of time it was and how solid the thinking behind it was.
I do hope that the cases which have been languishing on the dockets will be resolved before January. If not, justice will not have been speedy.
[quote:3tkj69y0]You well know that the people who participate in the forums are a minority of users. Indeed, you yourself were reluctant to become involved in forum discussion until I persuaded you to do so some months ago. As to who is active in the sims, it rather depends on the time of day.
Furthermore, there is no basis in reason for any assertion that the level of any such activity has any relationship whatsoever to the complexity or otherwise of our government. [/quote:3tkj69y0]
What is that the CDS does that no one else is doing? Government. It is clearly the reason that many are attracted to pay money to be part of this community. On what other measures should I base our health than the people's participation in the community and particularly its governance?
[quote:3tkj69y0]It does not deter you from participating: what are you doing now but participating?[/quote:3tkj69y0]
I would say I'm dissenting rather than participating.
Participation implies some level of power or ability to effect change. You have not indicated any willingness to allow the people who disagree with you to have any effect on changes.
[quote:3tkj69y0]Our purpose is not to have a government for the sake of having government: our purpose is to create a democratic community in which the rule of law prevails because democratic communities in which the rule of law prevails are better communities in general than other sorts of community. The purpose of our government is not to serve its own ends, but to serve the needs of all of our citizens, including (in fact, especially) those who are not themselves involved in the process of government. The only point of having a democratic community in which the rule of law prevails is because such a community is better for culture, commerce and general habitation than other sorts of communities, because we can co-ordinate things better and resolve disputes better.[/quote:3tkj69y0]
Hear, hear. When will we have a govenrment like that?
Interesting how you get around an argument about the problems of our current system by saying what a government should be, while at the same time actively blocking forward movement towards such a system.
[quote:3tkj69y0]I do not believe in complexity for its own sake: I believe in building institutions and systems that work [i:3tkj69y0]properly[/i:3tkj69y0], however simple or complex that such institutions or systems be. I do not believe that it is a valid criticsm of an institution or system merely to state that it is complex, rather than to show that any given part of the complexity has no useful function at all.[/quote:3tkj69y0]
How about this: the complexity of the current judicial system has stalled justice for at least a few situations over the last month?
[quote:3tkj69y0]Not on the definition of "government" that prevails in the UK.[/quote:3tkj69y0]
If you think we should leave our national prejudices at the door, you should stop appealing to how it is in the UK. It's certainly a fine system, but it's not the system of the majority of people in the CDS and shouldn't be our default way of doing things or looking at things. Neither should the US way, or the Spanish way, or the German way. Rather, we should admit our preconceptions and deal honestly with why we think one system or way of looking at things is better than another.