Presentation CARE's Public Service Act Proposal

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:14 pm

CARE believes that a truly democratic society does not allow an undue concentration of power in the hands any one individual or group, nor does it allow for a "professional" class of politicians who will drastically reduce the ability of other citizens to become public officials. Anyone interested in CARE's internal debates and discussions on this topic can find it here: http://www.care-cds.com/forum/index.php ... sg41#msg41

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:25 pm

A side effect of this is, of course, that the government grows rapidly. Were this enacted today, given the draft list of positions subject to the proposed term limits and restrictions on multiple mandates, at least 1/3 of our citizens would have to hold one of the positions in question in order for everything to be filled. When 1/3 of the population holds positions subject to public regulation, you have a massive bureaucracy. If we are to go that way, far better to move all the way to direct democracy. With the latter, you get the participation w/o the complexity.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:51 pm

That may well be in communities, cities, regions, countries with populations in the tens of thousands, millions, billions. It doesn't apply to a community of 76. 25 individuals can hardly qualify as "massive bureaucracy". You can't simply ignore effects of scale and apply the same template willy-nilly to a group of less than 100 individuals in exactly the same manner as to a country of over 1 billion (or all variations in between).

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:31 pm

And what happens when you can't find a 1/3 of our citizens to volunteer to staff this bureaucratic expansion of the state? Does it all grind to a halt? The reason for allowing some 'doubling up' but without the option of voting on multiple bodies was because we are a small community and not everyone wants to be a politician/bureaucrat (strange that!)

Like many of CARE's propsals this would ossify the CDS and make us less flexible and able to operate. A recipe for inertia. CARE haven't thought this one through.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:40 pm

I understand this argument when you are at 50 or less citizens. We are now at 76. With a 3rd sim we will get close to 1oo.. People are easy to find and motivate if one bothers to look them up and talk to them and lissten to them and make them enthusiastic about what we're doing. That's what CARE does.. and it works.. Ok, not all the time ( cf last CARE meeting ,,, ) but people do get involved if they feel welcome and valued. I have no doubt we could find 25 people to get involved.... and its not bureaucracy... you have to stop making these comparisons with RL where one comparess the apparently similar but ignores the vast underlying differences....

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 4:49 am

I find this odd - the same number of functions are there - just CARE is talking about making sure each is staffed by a single person?

"Massive Bureaucratic Expansion"?

Hardly.

It is just laying bare all the jobs that the CDS has taken on.

If you think that CARE's proposal is bad - [i:21u4vr3b]you are really saying that the government as it stands today is too big[/i:21u4vr3b] - and that is a different conversation.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:13 am

Bromo,

That would only follow if I agreed that all the positions covered by the proposed act on accumulation of mandates are and ought to be government positions. I don't . In fact I agree with Beathan that applying the act to non-constitutional offices and chartered NGO's is an inappropriate level of government intrusion into the private sphere. The government, as you have defined it, is too large, because you have defined it in an overly broad way.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:09 am

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":1aitu7jp]Bromo,

That would only follow if I agreed that all the positions covered by the proposed act on accumulation of mandates are and ought to be government positions. I don't . In fact I agree with Beathan that applying the act to non-constitutional offices and chartered NGO's is an inappropriate level of government intrusion into the private sphere. The government, as you have defined it, is too large, because you have defined it in an overly broad way.[/quote:1aitu7jp]

The argument you were making is that the # of citizens required to "participate" was "too large" - and I was pointing out that the # of jobs being undertaken is the *same* regardless of how you take it. Chartered by the government, done directly by the government - the effort required and the number of jobs is unchanged.

So I take it you are in agreement that having a wide range of participation isn't impossible and beyond the people in the CDS?

Now ... if you want to change your argument to say it is basically *correct* to allow individuals to hold multiple offices and the power imbued in them ... even to the possibility of abuse.

By the way - given your attitude towards Michel - if he sat on the RA, was secretary of the Guild, was on the Scientific council and chaired a Spiritual Places committee all simultaneously - I am pretty sure you guys would be singing a different tune.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:26 am

AH! I didn't think of that! You mean, I couldn't do that under my proposal? Right.... You know what, then? Let's keep the system we have now and forget all about cumulation of powers and term limits..... LOL

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:52 am

Bromo --

Given what our community thinks of Michel -- it boggles the imagination to think that we could have a community in which he "he sat on the RA, was secretary of the Guild, was on the Scientific council and chaired a Spiritual Places committee all simultaneously."

The problem with term limits is that it prevent the voters from voting for a person they want -- and for the dubious purpose of letting someone less qualified and desirable than the excluded person have a turn. Turntaking is nice on a kindergarten playground -- when dealing with power, it is less desirable.

With regard to prevention of cumulation or plurality of office, I would be inclined to support it -- but only if we recognize the clear distinction between public and private office. To prevent a person from holding a public office merely because they have a formal role in a private undertaking prevents, rather than expands, citizen participation in government, tends to professionalize (in a negative way) government office, and prevents our community from making full use of the talents of our citizens by forcing some of our most talented citizens to opt out of public life to further their private goals and offices.

The current rule that we have can be strengthened, if we wish, to prohibit simultaneous holding of government offices, even in a nonvoting capacity. I would be inclined to support that. However, I would oppose any measure that treats as public offices that are private -- by creating some new Frankensteinian category of the "quasi-governmental"; or any proposal that expands our government by socializing private offices, so that what was a private activity now becomes governmental.

This last point is my most serious disagreement with CARE's proposal. I don't think CARE's proposal will fly as is. The basic idea might have legs if modified as described by Claude and others (including me).

Perhaps, rather than argue in circles around a bad idea, we should discuss how to change the idea to make it palatable.

This is true of all of Michel's proposals. There is a kernel in most of Michel's proposals that has great merit. However, the scope of the proposals always go too far -- and in the wrong direction -- transforming what was a good idea in larval form into a mishapen monster of a proposal. The community recoils, in every case, from the monster. Michel, proud father of misbegotten beasts, beats his breast and howls at the recoiling community. Rather than engage in such bootless conflict, we should find the kernel of the ideas, discard the chaff, and create a new, good ideas to replace Michel's bad ones. I would even be willing to give Michel credit -- which he seems to crave -- for the ideas, provided I never have to live in a community regulated in the specific ways Michel proposes.

This would save us time and conflict, if nothing else.

Beathan

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 2:07 pm

If nothing else comes of this, at least there is idea being placed out there. Like the idea or not, we are debating again, and that is a good thing.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:00 pm

[quote="Bromo Ivory":nx0mmmrz][
The argument you were making is that the # of citizens required to "participate" was "too large" - and I was pointing out that the # of jobs being undertaken is the *same* regardless of how you take it. Chartered by the government, done directly by the government - the effort required and the number of jobs is unchanged.

So I take it you are in agreement that having a wide range of participation isn't impossible and beyond the people in the CDS?

Now ... if you want to change your argument to say it is basically *correct* to allow individuals to hold multiple offices and the power imbued in them ... even to the possibility of abuse.

[/quote:nx0mmmrz]

I feel this proposal is by and large not necessary. If you define government narrowly (not including the internal leadership of the factions or the guild), there is already constitutional language preventing most multiple mandates. The only current exception is Sudane/Rudeen who serves as Treasurer and EO. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I suspect she might want to cease being treasurer should an appropriately skilled (ie having some bookkeeping experience) and willing (to crank out multiple monthly financial statements) citizen present him or herself.

I am neutral about Beathan's suggestion that SC members be compelled to resign rather than being allowed to take a "leave of absence" to serve in another branch.

I've already expressed my opinion that applying this proposal to what you call "quasi-governmental" positions is a case of the government regulating where it ought not.

As to citizen participation. We have in the past had difficulty finding enough people to fill all the defined roles in out community. I hope you're right that we have passed that stage. I worry, however, that the proposal, as it stands, creates a situation where we must have 25 or so willing persons to fill all the roles. I hope you're not wrong, but what would we do if this proposal on accumulation of mandates were enacted and then, either immediately, or six months down the road, we found that there were not enough citizens willing to do all the jobs?