Initial Criminal Code

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Desmond Shang":lwgmggzd]By the same logic, Beathan, you are an executioner. Disregard the fact that if you went around killing gas station attendants with a lead pipe, it wouldn't last long because the cops would get you.

Just because there are practical restrictions doesn' t mean you don't have the power!

Thus, you are an executioner. But a benevolent one!

* * * * *
[/quote:lwgmggzd]

LOL - This is what I suspected all along!

Actually as owner of that SIM collection, you are much like the owner of a popular restaurant or club - very busy serving your customers - figuring out how to pay for things, etc.

But make no mistake, the thing is, at the end of hte day, your baby. (Though like the club, you *need* patrons or you'd close)

But, I will stop now, since the quote comes to mind:

"The difference between wasting an hour of a person's life, or killing them outright is only a matter of degree"

LOL - Desmond, Beathan, you guys crack me up!

[Desmond Shang]

I'm here on Thursdays - don't forget to try the veal!

[Beathan]

Desmond --

There is a difference between me as a potential executioner and you as ruler of your personal fiefdom. Your power as autocrat is not limited by legal restrictions -- only by political ones -- and those categories of limits are not the same.

Also, with regard to the Lindens -- I do not want a "no Linden" rule. First, such a rule would do nothing but invite the Lindens to take special interest of a place that has the gall to try to exclude them. Further, I don't dislike the Lindens as people -- I like the alts of Lindens I have met. I just dislike the Lindens as Lindens. I have called them negligent gods. I fear them as gods and disrespect them for being negligent. Not a combination that inspires confidence.

My fear is not just of the Lindens -- but of any and all real powers that have a real position of supremacy over us, should they choose to use it. Freedom exists not in avoiding positions of potential inferiority -- but in avoiding situations in which that inferiority is realized. We are free to the extent we are allowed to do our own project. I know the Lindens want nothing more than to let us do so -- and I like and respect this about the Lindens. (The Lindens act best when they don't act at all.) I just want to make sure that we keep things that way by, among other things, preventing our state or our citizens from inviting or requesting that the Lindens (or any RL government) intervene.

Beathan

[Bromo Ivory]

Hi Beathan -

I do believe Desmond is "yanking your chain" a bit -

I think once we have a solid dispute resolution system, then offering it as some sort of CDS-wide binding arbitration is our best path. Since LL is so spotty (clearly they are overwhelmed) as well as "hands off" on resolution of minor things - let alone big ones - that anyone who offers a consistent set of rules is at an advantage - and there is no need to force someone to choose dispute resolution systems with threats.

Having said that - we are small enough that we can take advantage of our current size and not pile on layers of rules and regulations - after all we don't want to be stuck in a "that which is not mandatory is forbidden" trap.

Since the SIMs are ruled by the RA (Committee) we don't have the ability to apply the rules the same way Desmond can (who I am dubbing the "official CDS comedian" despite him being holed up in Caladon like a hermit - AHEM).

[Jon Seattle]

[quote="Bromo Ivory":22wbw6jh]I think once we have a solid dispute resolution system, then offering it as some sort of CDS-wide binding arbitration is our best path.[/quote:22wbw6jh]We have one if you look at the current laws. The bill was co-authored by a member of your own party.

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Jon Seattle":yb04gbkk][quote="Bromo Ivory":yb04gbkk]I think once we have a solid dispute resolution system, then offering it as some sort of CDS-wide binding arbitration is our best path.[/quote:yb04gbkk]We have one if you look at the current laws. The bill was co-authored by a member of your own party.[/quote:yb04gbkk]

Aha! So we do! Silly me!

[Beathan]

Bromo --

We don't just have an arbitration act. We have a fully conceived judicial system with a simple but complete code of procedure. At the moment, we don't seem to have any pending cases -- although there were some that were lost in the shuffle between the previous (and unnecessarily complicated and elitist) Judiciary Act and the reformation of that Act to a more modest (and safer) form.

I also think that it is incorrect to suggest that we do not already have a criminal code. We have expressly identified several behaviors which we prohibit -- even those those behaviors do not necessarily violate the LL TOS. (The anti-Ulrika laws fit this category.)

My proposal was intended to provide a structure for the existing laws which can also serve to categorize future legislation. That said, it is clear that our community resists the term "criminal" for such a framework of law -- and also resists some of the detail I proposed. That is fine -- we can go a different way.

However, however we choose to regulate behavior, we must do two things: 1. we must take steps to prohibit or otherwise protect ourselves from behaviors that would harm our community or undermine our sovereignty as a community and 2. we must protect ourselves from the application of these prohibitions by providing for due process in the application of these laws.

Beathan