Events Promotion Bill

[Beathan]

Arria and Bromo --

I see a distinction between two kinds of activities -- public cultural events under public patronage and private events and activities, which are necessary for a community to be vibrant, but are nonetheless private I support public funding and planning for public cultural events. However, these should either be organized as usual and regular public holidays or should be dealt with on an initiative-by-initiative basis.

Private events should be protect from public licensing anf control. This even, IMO, includes private events in public spaces. Some day we may be busy enough that private use of public spaces will interfere with public uses of those space or private uses of those spaces. However, we are not there yet. As we are not there -- i don't think special licensing -- even "permission of the Chancellor" is required or desirable. I think notice to the Chancellor, and to the community, is sufficient -- and concerns can be raised following the notice. However, anything that smacks of public control of private activites should be avoided.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

Which goes to show how totally anachronistic your false dychotomy of public / private has become. Yyou remind me of old, decrepit soviet ideologues who ere still arguing Marxist doctrine while the Soviet Empire was on the verge of implosion.

[michelmanen]

Arria,

I wish you'd actually take the time to read the posts of a person you are going to disagree with before doing so. I wrote above:

[quote:15y7c55e]In short - the idea is right, but it needs more thought and a more comprehensive, detailed, effective approach. Should the argument arise that this type of planning is the domain of the Exxecutive and not the RA, whose job is to only provide funds and specify spending criteria and supervision standards, we would reply that public consultations with citizens and determining worthwhile projects is well within the range of the RA's duties. At the same time, we would not impose strict, mandatory limits on moneys to be allocated to any one event, but require the Executive to consult with the RA before awarding to any event an amount larger than, say, $600L.[/quote:15y7c55e]

Since I DID write this a few posts above, I didn;t think it necessary to reapeat every comment again and again. As you can see, your comments are in total agreement with mine - not disagreement. Try to be more thorough next time...

[Arria Perreault]

[quote="michelmanen":2kos6dwa]I wish you'd actually take the time to read the posts of a person you are going to disagree with before doing so.[/quote:2kos6dwa]

Sorry Michel. I just intend to precise my thought about the role of every instance than express a opposite idea.

In my mind, quotation does not mean that we disagree. We just continue the debate, sometimes with totally new ideas, sometimes with small details.

[Beathan]

[quote="michelmanen":2hbt73vs]Which goes to show how totally anachronistic your false dychotomy of public / private has become. Yyou remind me of old, decrepit soviet ideologues who ere still arguing Marxist doctrine while the Soviet Empire was on the verge of implosion.[/quote:2hbt73vs]

Uh, what? The dichotomy is not false. It is felt every moment of every day in every life that happens to be blessed enough to live in a free society. Let's not lose that.

If you are going to draw a parallel between my ideas and Stalinism, please be so kind as to tell me on what the similarity depends. I have done you that courtesy. (And, as I have shown -- at least where CARE is concerned -- drawing the parallel explicitly is not that hard. Indeed, the project of trying to abolish the concept that some things are private by making all things public and subject to public control is one of the starkest and most frightening parallels -- one that makes me fully justified in observing that CARE's commitments, like Stalin's, are totalitarian.) I wait with bated breath for someone to show me that I am a Stalinist -- or even a Marxist.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

LOL! As usual, Beathan, you have no idea what you're talking about. I did not imply you were a stalinist - but I *did* state that the particular paradigm of governance you so firmly espouse is just as obsolete and reasy to implode as was Soviet Communism in the mid-80s. Can you get the difference?

[Beathan]

Michel --

Yes, I get the difference. I was criticising you for doing two things I don't do: 1. invoke a controversial or outright bad political theory in an argument with a person unless I believe that their viewpoint shares a kinship the the theory I am invoking and 2. claiming that something is wrong or obsolete without analysis or examples.

The fact is that the public/private distinction is not only alive an well in our post-post-modern world -- it is the essence of most of what we, as Western Europeans, at home or in our North American and Oceanic diaspora, care about. The public/private distinction is the driving force behind modern economic strength and growth; behind much great art and literature; behind the courage with which we face each day without the fear that some bureaucrat somewhere cares about us in ways that are unsettling in their detail and invasiveness.

Again, it would be a shame to lose this distinction -- which is the essence of much that is enduringly good about America and Western Europe -- especially on a shallow, handwaving claim that it is somehow "obsolete." Rather, what is obsolete are all the alternatives that were offered to the public/private distinction in the last century, which was not short on Communist and Fascist experiments in abolishing the private.

It is a shame that you, apparently, did not learn this lesson -- perhaps the great lesson of the Twentieth Century -- and are trying, instead, to impose, in this virtual space, a morally and intellectually bankrupt political theory that will work here no better than it worked in real life and space.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

We shall see.

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Beathan":33nhq8q9][quote="michelmanen":33nhq8q9]Which goes to show how totally anachronistic your false dychotomy of public / private has become. Yyou remind me of old, decrepit soviet ideologues who ere still arguing Marxist doctrine while the Soviet Empire was on the verge of implosion.[/quote:33nhq8q9]

Uh, what? The dichotomy is not false. It is felt every moment of every day in every life that happens to be blessed enough to live in a free society. Let's not lose that.

If you are going to draw a parallel between my ideas and Stalinism, please be so kind as to tell me on what the similarity depends. I have done you that courtesy. (And, as I have shown -- at least where CARE is concerned -- drawing the parallel explicitly is not that hard. Indeed, the project of trying to abolish the concept that some things are private by making all things public and subject to public control is one of the starkest and most frightening parallels -- one that makes me fully justified in observing that CARE's commitments, like Stalin's, are totalitarian.) I wait with bated breath for someone to show me that I am a Stalinist -- or even a Marxist.
[/quote:33nhq8q9]

I think the issue I am having is that everyone seems intent on pinning loaded words and labels on one another. Which really isn't discussion or debate in this case - just immature playground antics.

So the similarity I see with this dialog between you and Michel is ... you both are arguing about [i:33nhq8q9]names[/i:33nhq8q9] rather than substantial [i:33nhq8q9]issues.[/i:33nhq8q9] I don't think anyone who isn't in office in CDS who bothers to read this flame ridden Forum actually believes CARE is Stalinist nor Simplicity Stalinist- [i:33nhq8q9]so you both can cut this crap right out![/i:33nhq8q9]

(For Pete's Sake - you push each others buttons and then drive RIGHT off topic into this sort of name calling. [i:33nhq8q9]Stop it, both of you![/i:33nhq8q9])

[Beathan]

Bromo --

I frankly believe that CARE has totalitarian tendencies. I use the loaded words to express loaded thoughts. It it not playground antics to use a loaded term advisedly to express an idea that cannot be clearly expressed otherwise. I have trouble imagining a better way to say that CARE's agenda is totalitarian than to say "CARE's agenda is totalitarian." I have had several people agree with me -- both in these forums and inworld. In fact, I take Michel's statement that "we shall see" as a clear acknowledge that I have properly characterized his (and, through him, CARE's) project.

Further, my discussion, unlike Michels, has not been superficial namecalling. I label the agenda with what I think is the proper description -- and then I describe and explain why I think this label is proper. So far, all anyone has done is object to my label. No on has refuted the analysis through which the label is justified. Without such refutation, I believe I have the right to continue to use the label. If some effective refutation is offered, I am not so proud as to persist in my now-refuted position. I have demonstrated such dialectic humility in the past. That said, I am not so weak as to withdraw my arguments in the face of mere, unreasoned, unanalytical opposition or name-calling.

Further, I believe that I have an obligation as a citizen, and even more as a member of the RA, to actively oppose, through reasoned opposition, any agenda or legislation that I think is based on bad theory or bad policy. I would betray this obligation if, out of a misguided desire to avoid conflict in favor of a shallow and false communal amity, I failed to oppose an agenda that is sweepingly invasive and destructive of Privacy the only supporting medium for individual liberty). CARE's agenda is such an agenda. It is wrong for any citizen not to oppose it -- wigorously, and with full rhetorical and analytical tools employed.

I continue to have great hope that you and the other members of CARE will save your party from this project and go down a different path. So far, however, despite my hopeful watchfulness, I have seen nothing of the sort.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

I really am not interested what you take and how you take it, Beathan.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Thank you for the contributions to this discussion. We have taken notice of the comments on the Bill and redrafted as follows. We hope this Bill will be passed on Sunday so we can kick start the development of a full programme of events in the CDS sims.

-------------------------
[i:on0rg6fa][b:on0rg6fa]Events Promotion Bill[/b:on0rg6fa][/i:on0rg6fa]

The Executive is directed to create a programme for financial (and other) support of events in the CDS.

The RA appoints [insert name of RA member] as 'Culture Minister' for the duration of this legislative term. The 'Culture Minister' will liaise with the Executive on behalf of the RA concerning the development of the events promotion budget and the promotion of culture and arts within the CDS.

A sum of $L4 000/month is appropriated to this programme beginning in August 2007 and running through to the end of January 2008.

The Executive will discuss this programme with the RA at the monthly meeting giving details of funds which have been awarded and planned expenditure.

[michelmanen]

Great! CARE will wholeheartedly support this initiative as worded now.

[Fernando Book]

I think that, if we have a true separation of powers, the RA should not appoint other members of the Executive than the Chancellor. Any other Executive officer, ever a political one, like a Minister, should be part of the Chancellor team.

In my opinion, this law should create the Ministry of Culture inside the Office of the Chancellor, and, perhaps, should state that the CDS budget will appropiate an amount for it, without being specific. Otherwise, each RA will have to modify this law to alter this amount.

We are very prone to be too specific in the laws.

[Beathan]

Michel --

I agree that is this an improvement over the original version, and I might even be able to support it (although I am skeptical of the creation of a new office ... but the office might be a reasonable one ...)

However, why are you, who are not CARE chairperson, or a CARE RA representative, presuming to speak for CARE if CARE is the independent Party you claim it is. Surely you should not presume to speak for the CARE position, given CARE's constitution, before the CARE membership has the ability to discuss or decide a position on this proposal at the Saturday meeting -- or are the CARE meetings the exercise in rubberstamping the opinions of Michel Manen that so many of us think they are?

Beathan