Citizenship Discussion (Forum Part of Commission)

Leon · Post by **Leon** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:27 am

Thanks Michel. Would you post it here. The graphic that is.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:32 am

Michel --

Is that quote from one of my posts? I don't recall the post.

However, I agree that we are having a good discussion on citizenship and that my views are far more radical than those of the, ironically named, social democrats.

Beathan

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:06 am

Beathan,

It's Gxeremio's proposal, on page 5 of this thread:)

Aas for the social democrats, I'm not all all suprised. They have all become a deeply conservative force everywhere - France, Germany for exmple-, trying to preserve the privileges of their members at the expense of the rest of the world -in other words, we don't care what happens to others as long as we maintain our hard-won entitlements. Plus ca change..... hahahaha

Michel

Leon · Post by **Leon** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:16 am

[quote="michelmanen":37dx7u4l]Aas for the social democrats, I'm not all all suprised. They have all become a deeply conservative force everywhere - France, Germany for exmple-, trying to preserve the privileges of their members at the expense of the rest of the world -in other words, we don't care what happens to others as long as we maintain our hard-won entitlements. Plus ca change..... hahahaha
Michel[/quote:37dx7u4l]

Michel, I'm looking forward to that graph. BTW, name calling is never a good strategy to promote cooperation.

L

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:50 am

Well Michel,

I still don't find the quote -- and I am not sure what "local POA" means, so I doubt I wrote it.

That said, while I support the idea of extending citizenship beyond land ownership by including citizenship by public service -- I don't support the idea of having general "at-large citizenship." That is, I don't support the idea that someone should be able to pay a fee, not own land, not engage in public works, and still be a citizen.

Beathan

Leon · Post by **Leon** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:58 am

[quote="Beathan":3n5p39xh]That said, while I support the idea of extending citizenship beyond land ownership by including citizenship by public service -- I don't support the idea of having general "at-large citizenship." That is, I don't support the idea that someone should be able to pay a fee, not own land, not engage in public works, and still be a citizen.

Beathan[/quote:3n5p39xh]

Beathan,

I can see the sense in this suggestion. I have my doubts about how this can be managed, but I can see the benefits in this suggestion.

L

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:26 am

Leon --

I think that we could manage this two-track citizenship as follows: a person can be a citizen either by owning land or by being a member of the Guild. The guild can police its membership to ensure that only active participants in Guild projects are members.

Then, if we ever move to region specific citizens, we can have people be citizens of a sim in which they own land -- or, if Guild-citizens, in a sim under construction or recently constructed. This would also give us incentive to maintain active projects.

Beathan

Fernando Book · Post by **Fernando Book** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 5:28 pm

The more I read this thread the more I feel that the metaphor that sustains Second Life and the CDS is contaminating our thoughts. We speak about ownership when we should see ourselves as tenants, and speaking about citizenship when we should speak about membership, (and using the word citizenship we start to talk about inmigration, and so on).

If we decouple citizenship from ownership as a general rule we should also decouple the CDS from the land management in our present and future sims. I know that may sound absurd, but is the wayt to show that the CDS is mainly a way to create and manage sims in a democratic environment, and this is its principal raison d'Ãªtre. We are a co-op of owners. What else is the CDS about? Promoting democracy? That could be done through a think tank, or a SL group. Promoting the arts? That could be done with a chartered organization.

The nucleus of the CDS is the management of the territory, and only those concerned should be able to vote.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:23 pm

Well ... we are hardly discussing such an extreme measures such a decoupling CDS form the SIm and so on.

Kinda like drinking water - ~2L/day is good - but if you drink 50L in 1 day you could suffer serious health complications. This does not make water a bad thing, and neither are the proposals going back and forth.

If we want a method of increasing citizenship by allowing limited paths by which people can be citizens without buying land, this isn't extreme. And I don't see how any proposal made so far would create the extreme scenarios some have feared.

I have heard some proposals:

1. Citizenship for service to CDS (such as Guild or other NGO could sponsor someone)
2. Paying a citizenship fee (deposit) + tier.
3. "Adopt a plot" where someone "buys" 128m^2 of public land which is held in trust by the CDS for public use - as citizenship

More?

Issues:

1. Millions of people recruited by factions to rig elections (need method by which this is prevented)
2. "We are really a land Co-Op" so offering non landowners citizenship in any form isn't right
3. THe elctoral make up of CDS would change and this is bad

Others?
Any others for a summary?

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:46 pm

Beathan,

My apologies. The Quote was Gxeremios....

Michel

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:52 pm

[quote:1pcmxe0j]The nucleus of the CDS is the management of the territory, and only those concerned should be able to vote.[/quote:1pcmxe0j]

That is so wrong in so many ways I won't waste my time to reply.

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:59 pm

[quote="michelmanen":1exetbs2][quote:1exetbs2]The nucleus of the CDS is the management of the territory, and only those concerned should be able to vote.[/quote:1exetbs2]

That is so wrong in so many ways I won't waste my time to reply.[/quote:1exetbs2]

Is it really so far off?

Fernando Book · Post by **Fernando Book** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:46 am

[quote="michelmanen":3pruaiiv][quote:3pruaiiv]The nucleus of the CDS is the management of the territory, and only those concerned should be able to vote.[/quote:3pruaiiv]

That is so wrong in so many ways I won't waste my time to reply.[/quote:3pruaiiv]

Michel,

What is left of the CDS if we deprive it of the management of the territory (creating sims, managing sims, solving problems related with the use of land...)? Nothing of almost nothing.

Any reason valid enough to give citizenship rights to somebody who doesn't own land in the CDS should be also valid enough to give a person voting rights in my condominium meetings.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:54 am

Fernando,

The virtual land and virtual buildings simply create a virtual space (a nice one, of course!) for a community to form around it, acquire a sense of identity and explore issues of common interest.

It is very conunterproductive to confuse the two - one creates the setting for the other, but the real core of the enterprise is the community building part, not the virtual land management part (which, once the community is stronger, becomes less and less important for the community's survival).

Your condominium meetings are about real space in the real world; the community gets created BECAUSE all individuals share the same real space; here, no one shares the same real space and the virtual land is simply a tool for the creation of the real SL community.

Its totally wrong, therefore, to make such paralles betwen RL and SL and not appreciate the uniqueness and difference of SL, in all its magnitude and variables, from RL.

Michel

Tanoujin Milestone · Post by **Tanoujin Milestone** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:40 am

[quote="michelmanen":29lo8rw1]explore issues of common interest[/quote:29lo8rw1]

of common interest, and of particular and individual interests. Interest conflicts are about resources. They are not explored, but solved or decided on. The resources we share are real. They can be used to host social life - and there is control, e.g. to prevent nazi gatherings at the platz. The rules are not erratic, they are legitimated by democracy. If I were an artist, looking for a host, i would look out for resources, offered by reasonable, relyable, civilized people - why should i join them if i am on the road? And what hinders me to join them if i want to establish a permanent base? The lack of resources.

Civil society and state are not the same. Due to internationalization economy and civil society both broke out of the boundary of the territorial states. But this is where the resources are situated. Do you want to deterritorize the CDS, as Fernando suggested? If not you are trying to stick the brand of the state on social life - making rule enforcement less meaningful and intruding private activity.