Collective Property versus Un-Gated Community

[Danton Sideways]

I need to study CDS history more, but I'm going to share my perception of the current crisis. We're seeing conflicts which seem to be circumstantial, but which are in fact structural. The underlying cause of the conflicts is a fundamental contradiction between collective property and having an un-gated community.

This community was originally created as a democratic *cooperative*. Not just a formal democracy, but also an economic democracy, based on an essentially leftist principle of collective property. Members volunteer their time to build, in a spirit of cooperation, a shared space which is owned collectively.

But at the same time, this democracy wanted to be un-gated. Being un-gated, it is open to new members for whom private interests come first. For example, ThePrincess, who is openly anti-leftist, appears to want to use this collective property to serve her own opposing project. And if it were not her, it would be someone else. Because a group making collective builds in an un-gated environment always faces the risk of newcomers taking them over for their own program. If the property is collective, the community must be gated, in order to ensure that the producers retain sufficient control to benefit from what they have produced. Or, if you want an un-gated community, you must switch over to a coherent policy of private property, which is basically where ThePrincess wants to take us.

A policy of private property may include some amount of shared public space, but implies that most collective property eventually becomes private in one way or another. For economic democracy to exist in such a context, it must be walled off into private space, as gated cooperatives. Such economic cooperatives could be sub-groups within CDS, which collectively own land or other assets, but which are gated by some selective recruitment process.

CDS will continue to experience excruciating conflict until this structural problem is resolved. I suggest that all plans for growth or expansion should be put on hold while this is discussed, because it is unwise to build on shaky foundations. (Note: the idea of a relationship between collectivity and gating comes from a post by Prokofy Neva - but he drew very different conclusions.)

[Beathan]

Danton --

I have to disagree with you here. Unlike many in the CDS, who come from European or East Coast American backgrounds, my background is West Coast American and frontier. In American frontier culture, towns were successfully built through collective action but for capitalistic speculative purposes -- and were successfully built and populated on that model. I see no contradiction between collective action to create a community and the openness needed to grow and maintain it. In fact, I think that any sort of "gating" would be entirely counterproductive.

I think that there is a deep tension in our community -- that between libertarian democrats and social democrats. Our project is democratic, so we should not exclude either model, and we have not done so. I don't think that we need to resolve this question at all -- we certainly don't need to resolve it structurally by restricting our democracy by excluding one type of democrat or the other.

I think that we are succeeding, teapot tempests and all, on the "if you build it, they will come" model of virtual SL democracy. Our growth has been slower than it should be -- but I believe that is because our territorial expansion is slower than it should be. The solution to our problems should not make them worse by slowing or stopping our growth as a community.

Beathan

[Jon Seattle]

Beautifully written Danton, and I agree with your conclusions.

An interesting example is RL Quaker meetings. Quaker meetings successfully use one of the most democratic decision making procure possible - a variety of consensus that allows any member, with some effort, to block a decision supported by the remainder of the group. It does not always work quickly, but part of the reason it works reasonably well is that it typically takes months to become a full member of a RL Quaker meeting with the the right to block collective action. In practice people are accepted as members only when they have formed some lasting ties with the community. In this case "gatedness" helps to main maintain more democratic practices within the group.

In my experience there is also a kind of risk involved in contributing to a community like ours. The CDS (like Caledon) makes a lot of income from people abandoning land, with that land being re-sold for full price. This increases community assets, and means there is more to be gained by redirecting the community resources to implement private projects. We can also imagine that radically changing the function of the community would also cause people to lose the time and effort they invested in hopes that it the project would continue. With the current economic organization, there can be some undesirable incentives to play survivor.

Beathan, I disagree a bit with your conclusions about the far west. My MA. in geography (from the University of Washington) included quite a bit of historic study of that region.

1. Quite a lot of the initial settlement was organized by larger corporate and religious organizations. Its not by accident that, for example, Hudson’s Bay Company created the initial timber infrastructure and trade networks of the Portland basin and branched out to create satellite posts in Puget Sound. Missions were also significant in some cases.

2. There was a very significant economic subsidy to euro-american settlers that came from American Indians including depopulation due to disease. This included both technological inputs (food production methods that were suited to the environment), land, and developed land resources (land that had been burned over periodically to maintain fields and productive forest conditions, establishment of fisheries).

3. There was quite a lot of very deliberate government and cooperate planning involved in establishing larger population concentrations. This accounts for why some aspects of land use, transport, and governmental organization are so different from the East Coast where the establishment of those was far more organic and took much much longer. Jefferson’s settlement and road plan, the rail system, development of water-born transport, government efforts in surveying, the planned neighborhoods and street network in Seattle and Portland.

Oh, and by the way, I do not speak for CSDF at all, just a member, I swear!

[Beathan]

Jon --

Just to point out -- you are absolutely right about the history of the Pacific NW. I had in mind rather Wyoming and the settlement of the Plains along the railroad lines. However, even the Pacific Northwest experience confirms my point, I think. When I have in mind private expansion, I do not just think of individual efforts -- but of efforts by private groups as well. I just don't think we should limit ourselves to a bottlenecked monopoly of the Guild/RA combination in performing our expansion. I that that the Guild/RA should plan and guide expansion -- but we should open the floodgates on immigration and expansion and tear down the walls (let alone open the gates) around our "gated community."

The key is to engage private enterprise. We may have outgrown the ability of public collective action to continue our project. If we have not done so -- we will soon. It is time to privatize many functions that have been performed by Government in the CDS -- so that the Government in the CDS can focus on things that are necessarily governmental.

Beathan

[Bromo Ivory]

An interesting example is RL Quaker meetings. Quaker meetings successfully use one of the most democratic decision making procure possible - a variety of consensus that allows any member, with some effort, to block a decision supported by the remainder of the group. It does not always work quickly, but part of the reason it works reasonably well is that it typically takes months to become a full member of a RL Quaker meeting with the the right to block collective action. In practice people are accepted as members only when they have formed some lasting ties with the community. In this case "gatedness" helps to main maintain more democratic practices within the group.

Actually, Jon, I have found that the Quakers are not democratic at all in the truest sense of the word - and when I first got involved with them in RL, it really does appear to be a consensus amongst members. From a few books and a bit more experience, I have found that it really is supposed to be discerning the leadings of the Spirit rather a consensus amongst and between the notions and desires of individual members. There is an excellent book called Beyond Majority Rule which really details what I have found to be a very enlightened method of making decisions - but fraught with conflict. For Example a meeting I was attending on the West Coast (College Park Meeting in Santa Clara, CA) was nearly torn apart when a very weighty member whose Alzheimer's was progressing rapidly had felt led to end her life. This tore the meeting apart - much worse than anything I have seen in CDS, actually. Outside of those incidents, I also have seen a big difference in the method of coming to a decision between those that are genuinely trying to be understanding the Spirit's Will in a decision and those trying for a secular-style consensus.

And, yes, it does take quite a long time, though it is odd that it is both very participatory and not so democratic. And there are ways for the Clerk to bypass a member who attempts to block the decision - and refuses to "stand aside."

I suppose I am saying that there are a number of method of reaching a group decision, and none are immune from conflict. I do believe that the Quaker model requires a deep unity in core values in order to work (You have to be willing to put your personal agenda aside - completely and permanently - and try to discern what the Spirit/God wills for the decision and then go with that which is difficult sometimes) - and if you need expedient decision making it won't work very well.

[Danton Sideways]

Beathan -

As I told you in-world yesterday, I think you misunderstood part of my post. You suggest that I want CDS to be gated. On the contrary, I'm proposing a way to make CDS work better as a fully un-gated community. I think this has to be done on a rigorous basis of private property, whereas CDS currently constitutes a large reserve of collective property, accumulated through massive volunteer contributions. The situation needs to be clarified.

For me the historical parallel is more the privatisations in the former soviet countries, than how the American frontier was built. The privatisations in the former soviet contries were carried out in a criminal manner, all of the accumulated wealth going to various bureaucrats and mafias, and I'm sure CDS could do better. Since I personally am supportive of voluntarily collective property (years ago in RL I worked in a few worker's cooperatives in Oregon), I suggest that those CDS members who want to could form private cooperative structures (gated communities), in order to maintain at least some of the property in collective form.

And Jon, thank you for your kind words. I'm sure you probably diverge on some points, but I'm conforted to see that you appreciate the basic perception.

[Bromo Ivory]

I am not convinced that we are at a point where we need to privatize all of the public land in the SIMs. I am open to it if it really makes sense, but I do not have enough evidence myself. And given the % of land used for public buildings and things like roads and squares, I am not sure we are facing a problem here. Though, like I said speaking for myself I am wide open to this possibility, though I would like a bit more details of what is to be done. I agree that at 70+ people we are a touch larger than can be comfortably managed informally. (In my experience 5 RA members would be the limit for informal - back-of-the-envalope rules to work).

All I have seen is bickering in the RA, culminating in a couple of RA members resigning rather than forging a compromise, and the faction not having enough people willing to serve the RA to fill the seats to replace them. This does not say to me we need to privatize the land, it just says we may need better/more formal rules governing the RA, LRA selection and what criteria we have to guarantee succession.

It also would be good to have scads of new citizens who wish to serve in the political system.

[Leon]

All I have seen is bickering in the RA, culminating in a couple of RA members resigning rather than forging a compromise, and the faction not having enough people willing to serve the RA to fill the seats to replace them. This does not say to me we need to privatize the land, it just says we may need better/more formal rules governing the RA, LRA selection and what criteria we have to guarantee succession.

It also would be good to have scads of new citizens who wish to serve in the political system.

Hi Bromo (and everyone else)

I just want to point out that my unwillingness to serve on the RA is entirely down to the unnecessary conflict. I have much better ways to spend my life than arguing for the limited time I have in SL

And on a secondary topic, I don't feel the last 3 RA meetings would actually encourage anyone to join our brand of democracy?

Leon

[Danton Sideways]

Bromo -

It is a question of privatising the residential or commercial plots, rather than what you call "public buildings and things like roads and squares." In Colonia Nova I pay rent to a person (I believe it is Sudane) who acts as caretaker for CDS government, which collectively owns the entire sim - as well as the accumulated profits! And when I rented a plot, the house came with it for free. I could transfer the plot and charge a price for the house, but that would seem unfair. The house was free because it is part of the collective build of the Colonia town - and so on.

I know that privatising would require fundamental changes, but we must stop expecting people to donate time to builds which can so easily pass out of their control. As illustrated by the "tragedy of the commons," something that belongs to everyone in fact belongs to no one. Currently CDS collectively owns the three sims in their entirety, and the group members in reality just rent from the government (the act of "buying" plots is a fiction). Privatisation would mean taking each sim and dividing its ownership among clearly defined parties, such as: 30% to CDS government, 5% to avatar X, 2% to avatar Y and so on. This could be done by some sort of legal document, which would be updated periodically (such as once a year) to reflect the intervening changes of plot ownership. Working out the details would undoubtedly require a considerable amount of discussion...

[Bromo Ivory]

[...]Currently CDS collectively owns the three sims in their entirety, and the group members in reality just rent from the government (the act of "buying" plots is a fiction). [...]

Yes, but so it is throughout second life "islands" - the "purchase" is a fiction by design.

Privatisation would mean taking each sim and dividing its ownership among clearly defined parties, such as: 30% to CDS government, 5% to avatar X, 2% to avatar Y and so on. This could be done by some sort of legal document, which would be updated periodically (such as once a year) to reflect the intervening changes of plot ownership. Working out the details would undoubtedly require a considerable amount of discussion...

Linden Labs would be one major obstacle if this would have any teeth to it as the only recognized person with rights and responsibilities is the owner of record. Though I am wondering if you are proposing dividing up the cash reserves that are held per the laws to cover delinquent tier payments amongst the landowners? I am confused I suppose to what you are suggesting.

[Danton Sideways]

Bromo -

Yes indeed. For any given island sim the only "recognized person with rights and responsibilities is the owner of record" - in our case the caretaker representing CDS a whole. And even such one-person sim "ownership" is a fiction, since each server is in fact owned by Linden Lab. So, if we can set up a local system whereby a sim is "owned" collectively by CDS as a whole, we can just as easily set up a local system whereby ownership of a sim is distributed among individual avatars holding shares in it. This is what I mean by "privatisation" of each sim.

As to the specific modalities, that is wide open. I think everyone would agree that certain assets should remain collective property, such as cash reserves. But we should cut up the big pie and denote clear ownership for individual pieces. Otherwise all that collective property is just sitting there to be tossed about by whoever manages to get control of the CDS government.

[Dnate Mars]

Bromo -

Yes indeed. For any given island sim the only "recognized person with rights and responsibilities is the owner of record" - in our case the caretaker representing CDS a whole. And even such one-person sim "ownership" is a fiction, since each server is in fact owned by Linden Lab. So, if we can set up a local system whereby a sim is "owned" collectively by CDS as a whole, we can just as easily set up a local system whereby ownership of a sim is distributed among individual avatars holding shares in it. This is what I mean by "privatisation" of each sim.

As to the specific modalities, that is wide open. I think everyone would agree that certain assets should remain collective property, such as cash reserves. But we should cut up the big pie and denote clear ownership for individual pieces. Otherwise all that collective property is just sitting there to be tossed about by whoever manages to get control of the CDS government.

In the eyes of LL there is a single owner of all 3 of the CDS sims, Rudeen. We as a group have decided that only public land is owned by the government of the CDS. The rest of the sims are owned by the land owners of the land. Our "shares" are the land we own. And we do own that land, as long as we pay the monthly fee for it. We can sell it, we can build on it, we can ban people from it.

In short, I don't understand what you are asking here that is really different then what we are already doing.

[Jamie Palisades]

Interesting, provocative thoughts, Danton. But laying aside philosophical distinctions about ownership vs collectivism:

1. No matter whether the Schloss or CN Amphitheatre is owned by 200 people in 0.5% increments, or owned 100% by Sudane as trust for a government, *either* system results in some people having power to control that resource, by rule, contract or law. Seems to me it's the small-'g' governance issues that matter: under what circumstance can how many people take away my right as a citizen to enjoy the Schloss by replacing it with a model Parthenon?

2. If I'm right about that, then maybe your real reservation lies not in the form of control, but in the practical questions of how concentrated it is, and what checks and balances it has. If the CDS RA voted today to replace the Schloss with a toga shop, and made any necessary adjustments to enabling statues, then I could start a citizen campaign against it -- but they'd have voted for it, demolished, and maybe sold their first Paenula, before my first picket line went up :) Best I could get would be the Phyrric victory of trying to unseat the lot of them 6 months hence. So arguably right now the RA-power- to-citizen-power balance is a little uneven. Would each CDS citizen owning 0.5% of the Schloss change that? So, what, they send me a L$4 chit for my 1/200th of the ex-Schloss? In RL governments, in Western countries, there seem to be a few more juridical constraints on governmental discretion.

3. Here's another exercise: If I want to save the Schloss from next year's real estate development by putting it beyond the reach of a future RA, can I? Amend the constitution? Which requires approval from who?

Cheers Jamie

[Danton Sideways]

Bromo – I "bought" my house in Colonia Nova for a few thousand Lindens. If you add up all such "property values," you will see that the total is nowhere near the actual value of the sim. You admitted as much above when you wrote: "Yes, but so it is throughout second life 'islands' - the 'purchase' is a fiction by design."

Jamie – Of course part of the property would remain collective, such as the Schloss or CN Amphitheatre, and their fate would be decided by vote. But as things are now, ALL property in CDS is collective, even my "purchased" house, since the purchase was a fiction. I maintain this is unhealthy.

All - Here are suggestions concerning the modalities. Privatising the sims will require determining which avatars own (really own, not just rent) which assets. This involves two steps:

*Determine the value of all collectively-owned assets
*Determine the percentage of the total value that will go to each party (either to each avatar or to the collective government)

The first step involves putting a value on: each sim, all collective builds, the cash reserves. The value of each sim is somehow related to the purchase cost of a new sim. The value of the collective builds is much more difficult to determine (it might even be ignored in order to simplify things).

The second step involves determining a fair distribution. This obviously must be based on more than just who currently rents what, because that fails to measure how much time and energy each individual has invested over the years. To simplify the calculations, a compromise might be to divide up the total value as follows:

*50% of the total value to be divided in proportion to the total amount of time each present member has belonged to CDS (let us say that those who have left have already cashed in their chips)
*50% of the total value to be divided in proportion to the amount of land each avatar currently rents

Such a distribution is heavily biased in favour of late-comers who recently joined and have done little to build the sims, but it might permit rapid resolution. More precise estimates of how much each member has contributed over the years are also possible, but would be long and thorny.

[Dnate Mars]

Bromo – I "bought" my house in Colonia Nova for a few thousand Lindens. If you add up all such "property values," you will see that the total is nowhere near the actual value of the sim. You admitted as much above when you wrote: "Yes, but so it is throughout second life 'islands' - the 'purchase' is a fiction by design."

Jamie – Of course part of the property would remain collective, such as the Schloss or CN Amphitheatre, and their fate would be decided by vote. But as things are now, ALL property in CDS is collective, even my "purchased" house, since the purchase was a fiction. I maintain this is unhealthy.

All - Here are suggestions concerning the modalities. Privatising the sims will require determining which avatars own (really own, not just rent) which assets. This involves two steps:

*Determine the value of all collectively-owned assets
*Determine the percentage of the total value that will go to each party (either to each avatar or to the collective government)

The first step involves putting a value on: each sim, all collective builds, the cash reserves. The value of each sim is somehow related to the purchase cost of a new sim. The value of the collective builds is much more difficult to determine (it might even be ignored in order to simplify things).

The second step involves determining a fair distribution. This obviously must be based on more than just who currently rents what, because that fails to measure how much time and energy each individual has invested over the years. To simplify the calculations, a compromise might be to divide up the total value as follows:

*50% of the total value to be divided in proportion to the total amount of time each present member has belonged to CDS (let us say that those who have left have already cashed in their chips)
*50% of the total value to be divided in proportion to the amount of land each avatar currently rents

Such a distribution is heavily biased in favour of late-comers who recently joined and have done little to build the sims, but it might permit rapid resolution. More precise estimates of how much each member has contributed over the years are also possible, but would be long and thorny.

First of all, if you add up the purchasing prices for all the plots for sale when they were sold by the CDS to the citizens you will find that the total is more then what we paid for the sim.

Second, no one can "own" just part of the sim. LL requires a single point of contact for sims. There is no way we can get around this. There will always be a single sim owner that can come in and do what they please.

Third, basing a value on how much work has been placed in the sims goes against most of what this project stands for. We are here to build a community that can govern itself. We have come up with a way that has been tried and tested and been proven to work pretty well. It isn't perfect, but nothing is.

I also don't understand what good placing value on everything would do. You can't sell just your share of the value. Basically, each share on its own is worthless, but as a group it has value. I still don't understand what you are trying to do.