Ashcroft's Judiciary Bill

Proposals for legislation and discussions of these

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
Rudy Ruml
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:27 am

Ashcroft's Judiciary Bill

Post by Rudy Ruml »

I have gone through the various versions of Ashcroft's Judiciary Bill, the vigorous questions raised about it, and Ashcroft' responses.

This Bill has gravitas by virtue of Ashcroft's mass of carefully articulated, reasoned, and comprehensive provisions; his careful and incisive responses to questions and assertions; by his own scholarship; and that he put tremendous, unpaid, public service labor into this effort. Yes, he is a lawyer, but on reading his Bill and his responses (and discussing other matters with him), it is clear to me that he goes well beyond being a mechanic of the law. He is a thinking, knowledgeable scholar of the law.

And there is much I like in his Bill, such as the emphasis on common law and precedent.

But (and so as not to disappoint your expectation that all such openings lead to a "but"), I have problems with some of its provisions, such as appointing rather then electing justices, especially the Chief Judge of Common Jurisdiction, and his dismissal of formal ADR. Ashcroft and I could have a spirited discussion of all this, but it is moot. For I disagree with the whole idea of the Bill. Given what I said above about the Bill's gravitas and Ashcroft's scholarship in law, this seems churlish of me, at best. How can I, with a wipe of my hand, throw the whole thing out?

Well, if I'm going to do this for Ashcroft's Bill, I might as well be complete, raise more questions about my mental stability, and throw out the Constitution as well.

You see, the Bill just adds more complexity to what is already an over complex, over institutionalized, political system suitable for governing a city or large town, but not a group of 30-40 people. Yes, as Ashcroft assumes, our city may grow and expand into a democratic federation of regions. Yes, but it is not that now.

The city is like small apartment house, or a golf, tennis, or soccer club. I'm sorry, and I don't intend to demean the hard and thoughtful work that people have put into this democracy. Democracy is a great aim, and I applaud the effort to set up the institutions of one and to develop an overarching democratic constitution to govern it. With Ashcroft, I believe that the essence of democracy is the rule of law. But, coming from the outside only about five or six weeks ago, I have nothing invested in these institutions (the unkind will say, "No experience with them either."), and therefore I may have a fresh, objective perspective on them.

What do I suggest? A constitutional convention whose purpose would be to evaluate and reconstruct the city's democratic political institutions. In this, I would propose a regularly elected city council, perhaps of seven or nine people (to avoid tie votes). It would elect its own Chairman, who would serve as the city's executive, and appoint what functional officials are necessary (secretary, treasurer, etc.). The council would determine its own rules, and the governing rules—constitution—for the city and its commerce. In this, I Imagine that Ashcroft's Judicial Bill would be exploited for details.

Finally, I would want the city's citizens to have the power of the initiative, recall, and referendum.

Now, as you may notice, this is a far more ambitious and powerful idea than is Ashcroft's Bill, yet rather than 20 pages of detailed provisions, it amounts to the two paragraphs above. This is because there is much to discuss about it, and in effect, that discussion will be like a citywide ADR. At this stage, nut and bolts details about such a city council can only cause arguments to the detriment of considering the overall idea. First the idea, then the details, and for that it might be wise to set up a group to engage them and to present their conclusions in a referendum. :cry: :cry:

User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

Actually, Rudy, this is an observation I've made several times. I've often felt we would be better run with a more "New England town hall" approach. This is, in fact, because most decisions that actually accomplish anything tend to be decided on this way anyway, in my experience; we then force it to the formalities of the government to make it "right".

I've my own opinions as to [i:3q52x48i]why[/i:3q52x48i] this is, but no real evidence one way or another, so I keep it to myself.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Our raison d'etre

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Rudy Ruml":vi0smnll]I have gone through the various versions of Ashcroft's Judiciary Bill, the vigorous questions raised about it, and Ashcroft' responses.

This Bill has gravitas by virtue of Ashcroft's mass of carefully articulated, reasoned, and comprehensive provisions; his careful and incisive responses to questions and assertions; by his own scholarship; and that he put tremendous, unpaid, public service labor into this effort. Yes, he is a lawyer, but on reading his Bill and his responses (and discussing other matters with him), it is clear to me that he goes well beyond being a mechanic of the law. He is a thinking, knowledgeable scholar of the law.

And there is much I like in his Bill, such as the emphasis on common law and precedent.[/quote:vi0smnll]

You say kind things.

[quote:vi0smnll]But (and so as not to disappoint your expectation that all such openings lead to a "but"), I have problems with some of its provisions, such as appointing rather then electing justices, especially the Chief Judge of Common Jurisdiction, and his dismissal of formal ADR.[/quote:vi0smnll]

I have dealt at length elsewhere about why popular election of judges is very dangerous; also, I do not "dismiss formal ADR": I merely state that there is no good reason why it requires a constitutional provision, requiring that the Scientific Council provide an essentially nationalised ADR service, whether it has the resources or expertise to do so or not. My approach has always been that, if ADR is needed, it should have the chance to develop as a private enterprise to fulfill whatever need does arise.

[quote:vi0smnll]Ashcroft and I could have a spirited discussion of all this, but it is moot. For I disagree with the whole idea of the Bill. Given what I said above about the Bill's gravitas and Ashcroft's scholarship in law, this seems churlish of me, at best. How can I, with a wipe of my hand, throw the whole thing out?

Well, if I'm going to do this for Ashcroft's Bill, I might as well be complete, raise more questions about my mental stability, and throw out the Constitution as well.

You see, the Bill just adds more complexity to what is already an over complex, over institutionalized, political system suitable for governing a city or large town, but not a group of 30-40 people. Yes, as Ashcroft assumes, our city may grow and expand into a democratic federation of regions. Yes, but it is not that now.

The city is like small apartment house, or a golf, tennis, or soccer club. I'm sorry, and I don't intend to demean the hard and thoughtful work that people have put into this democracy. Democracy is a great aim, and I applaud the effort to set up the institutions of one and to develop an overarching democratic constitution to govern it. With Ashcroft, I believe that the essence of democracy is the rule of law. But, coming from the outside only about five or six weeks ago, I have nothing invested in these institutions (the unkind will say, "No experience with them either."), and therefore I may have a fresh, objective perspective on them.[/quote:vi0smnll]

I must disagree. My concern with your approach is the same as my concern with Aliasi's that I discussed in a previous thread: you state that the system is more complex than it needs to be for a small group, and then assume that what is unnecessary is thereby undesirable. There are three essential flaws to this approach.

Firstly, the claim that the constitution is "too complex" is not supported by any reasoning as to why the particular level of complexity that it has is detrimental to anything. Something can only be "too" anything if it is excess in the sense that there is so much of it that the quantity itself has adverse consequences. "More X than necessary" does not entail "too much X". Something that is not necessary may nevertheless be desirable. You may only need a Mini to drive to the shops and back, but if somebody else is paying for you to have a Rolls Royce, you cannot really complain that it is bad because it is "not necessary". It is possible for something to be [i:vi0smnll]better[/i:vi0smnll] than strictly necessary to acheive a set of minimal functions, and that is what a properly formalised constitution such as ours is, and will be especially if there is a properly functional judicial system.

Secondly, once it is accepted that what we seek to be (and what our [i:vi0smnll]raison d'etre[/i:vi0smnll] is) is a virtual nation, and not a virutal social club set against the background of a few pretty medieval houses, then it follows from that that we should have the all the structure and formality of a real nation, notwithstanding that it is possible to organise a group of [i:vi0smnll]some[/i:vi0smnll] sort of our size (or, indeed, larger than our size) with far less formality. The mistake that, I think, you make is to assume that the necessary formality of the institutions of a group scales only with the [i:vi0smnll]number of people[/i:vi0smnll] in the group, rather than the nature of the functions of that group. If we were a virtual social club (or a virutal golf club, or a virtual tea soceity), we could do perfectly well with very few formal rules at all, and just a little committee that meets every month with two hundred word constitution and no real politics at all, even if we had several hundred members. It is because what we seek to do (regulate a geographic subset of an entire virtual world, complete with a fully-functioning and highly active economy) that means that the required degree of formaility is higher than that of a social club, not because we have, at present, a very large number of people. The functions that we perform, regulating economic activity, shaping the environment in which our residents spend their virtual lives, deciding who may join, and who shall be excluded from our community, and many other such things are things that are far more [i:vi0smnll]intrusive[/i:vi0smnll] into people's (second) lives than the activities of a mere social club.

It is no criticism of you to state this, because you have come to SecondLife for a very noble purpose, and are doing a good job in despatching that purpose, but different people have very different ways of thinking about SecondLife, and I strongly suspect that your way of thinking about it (derived from the reason that you are here at all) is rather more distant than that of many others. On your 'blog, for instance I know that you disclaim all interest in SecondLife commerce and making money, and state that your main purpose is to educate people about the Deocratic Peace (which is a good thing: your seminars are most interesting, and certainly generating a lot of interest in Neufreistadt). Gwyneth has said that the users of SecondLife fall into two broad categories: the immersionists, who see SecondLife as a whole other world, as real to them when they are in it as the world of reality, and almost as important to them as it, and the extensionists, who view SecondLife as a tool, like e-mail or the World Wide Web, to perform particular functions (such as talking to people, or, as in your case, educating people) , and are no more attached to its contents than people are attached to an e-mail client or a web page. (I rather think that I fall somewhere between the two camps: I do not pretend that the physical environment is real, but there is a sense in which the [i:vi0smnll]social[/i:vi0smnll] and [i:vi0smnll]economic[/i:vi0smnll] environment of SecondLife is just as real as the "real" world beyond it). I strongly suspect that you fall into the latter category. As I said, that is no criticism of you, but I think that it is quite likely that it has informed your opinion on this matter.

The reason that I think that is this: if all anyone in SecondLife was doing was treating the programme as a way to interact with people in a pretty 3d environment, and maybe learn a few things, and have fun conversation along the way, people would take the whole thing far less seriously than many people do. Two things cause (many: not all) people to take SecondLife more seriously than something that is just a tool to acheive real-life functions over the internet: (1) many people like to feel some sense of escape, and like to feel that that they are part of a real soceity in which they can be very different (and, I rather suspect the key thing, far more [i:vi0smnll]successful[/i:vi0smnll], either in general, or in some specific sense) than they are in real life; and (2) there is a potentially substantial amount of real-life money to be made in SecondLife. The result of those two things is that decisions by a governing body of a community in SecondLife affecting a person's (virtual-)physical environment, economic environment, social environment, or whether that person can continue to be a member of that group at all, can have profound real-life consequences for the people in question, either financially or personally. A person may be extremely distressed, for example, either at being made to leave the group in question (and abandon any goods on her or his "land"), or at the actions of another person in the group, who may also be very distressed at having to leave it. If SecondLife was nothing but a 3d chatroom, that would not be the case, and a highly formalised government with a written constitution, a parliament, an executive and a court system would be absurd. But, for many people at least (and probably a majority of users), SecondLife is far more than a 3d chatroom: it is a whole world, and the consequences of adverse decisions for people involved in it are just as real as if they were decisions taken in a world. You may know, for example, that some people earn a full-time real-life living from SecondLife. The little 3d models that are land and objects have a non-trivial real-world economic value (precisely because of their personal value to the people who use them), and it is a very real loss to somebody if those things are taken away. Indeed, if SecondLife were regarded by most as no more than a 3d communications tool, it would be extremely surprising indeed if so many people unquestioningly accept, as many do, what we are and what we are seeking to do, rather than finding the whole thing laughable. The very fact that people are not laughing at us (or at the JAG Navy, or at Caledon, or at Port Neualtenburg) for the mere fact of having formal governance structures says a great deal about how people view SecondLife.

In our community, therefore, just as in real-life countries, a proper formalised governmental and legal system is necessary to regulate what would otherwise be a considerable degree of power held by a few individuals to alter the (second) lives of others. An informal committee is better than a despot, but it does not have the safeguards that a full constitution with separate branches and a delicate balance of the powers has, and is therefore inferior to it.

Also, there is a sense in which we are an [i:vi0smnll]experiment[/i:vi0smnll], and that that is a very important part of the reason that many of us are here in itself. There are lots of groups out there, many with far more people than ours, that get by perfectly well with very simple management structures, and do perfectly well out of it, but many of us are here to see whether a formalised, democratic government structure can work in a virtual world, and to see how well that it works. So far, we are succeeding. Succeeding means that a substanial proportion of the people who are here are not here principally because they want to take part in the experiment, but because they see us as a good place to do whatever other thing that they want to do (sell things, or, as in your case, educate people): after all, if we were composed [i:vi0smnll]only[/i:vi0smnll] of those few people interested in the workings of government itself, we would have a very hollow community: government for the sake of government does not do anybody any good. That there are people who [i:vi0smnll]want[/i:vi0smnll] to live under our formalised, democratic government for some other reason than that they want to be [i:vi0smnll]involved[/i:vi0smnll] with running that formalised, democratic government (and there are many of those now, and ever increasing) is a powerful indicator of our success. What our experiment is doing is showing that a properly constituted, formal, real-world like government can not only [i:vi0smnll]work[/i:vi0smnll] in SecondLife (we have already proved that), but also, in the long term, do [i:vi0smnll]better than[/i:vi0smnll] more informal structures, such as a mere despot (or a constitutional monarchy, such as Caledon), or a democratic but informal structure such as you suggest. We do not abandon an experiment part-way through because, although it is working, the things that the experiment is showing can be done in the method being tested by the experiment can also be done in another way. Although not everyone is here to take part in an experiment of government in a virtual world, many are, and your minimal structure would remove that raison d'etre. Even assuming for a moment that you were right that it is not strictly [i:vi0smnll]necessary[/i:vi0smnll] to have a fully formalised legal system in our community as things stand now, is it not an exciting thought that we are the pioneers of something that nobody has ever tried to do before - a real legal system in a virtual world? As I explain above and below, it very mich is necessary for our community, but, even if it were not, that would be a sufficient reason to have it on its own.

The third point is about expansion. I have posted a number of times now that I intend to write at some length about just how powerful our franchulates proposal could be, and why we might just end up expanding a great deal more than we had imagined if we adopt it, if we make some small revisions to it. I intend to post that explanation very soon, possibly this evening or later this afternoon if I get a chance. The important point, though, is this: a system that is designed to be able to work for a large community does not fail to work for a small community, provided that there are enough people to perform all the functions, which, in our system, there are. However, a system that is designed for a small community most certainly does not work for a large community: as I have posted elsewhere, as the number of people grows, the number of relationships, and therefore the number of potential conflicts, grows exponentially. A government and legal system are there to deal with that conflict. If it is not dealt with adequately, serious problems occur: in real life, civil war; in SecondLife, fragmentation of our group.

If, therefore, we adopt now a system primarily suitable for a small community, it will become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, meaning that we will always be small, because as we expand, the system will not be able to cope with conflicts, and the group will fragment into multiple, smaller groups. The benefit of formality is its ability to deal with otherwise intractable conflicts (whether prospectively or retrospectively) between people or groups who may or may not have any personal connexion to each other. The liklihood of such conflicts grows exponentially as we grow. If we plan to get bigger (and we do), we must have a system that is now [i:vi0smnll]ready[/i:vi0smnll] for us to expand, rather than having to change things again when we do get bigger. Your suggestion is like saying, "I only have ten books now, so I'll buy a bookshelf that will fit exactly ten books". The problem is that, by the time that you get more books, you might no longer be able to accommodate any more bookshelves without causing great upheval to your interior decor. Similarly, unless our systems, as they stand now, are scaleable, we may not be sufficiently flexible in the future to change into a system that will work for a larger number of people.

If we are, as I will suggest with my post about franchulates, and as many of us in any event (albeit perhaps at this stage more vaguely) hope, to expand eventually a great deal, and, in particular, to attract a great many [i:vi0smnll]commercial[/i:vi0smnll] interests (money, after all, is one of the greatest motivators, and without it, we could not exist), we need to have a system that works at any scale without further tinkering (or further wholesale reform). Making our system [i:vi0smnll]smaller[/i:vi0smnll] when we are planning to expand is quite the wrong way to go. Commerce needs formality because it is important for commercial actors to be able to predict what is going to happen, and to be able to trust institutions (such as our government) with their assets (such as their land). Informal arrangements are neither predictable nor the sort of thing that one would sensibly trust to oversee a highly valuable asset.

I disagree with Rudy's proposal, therefore, not because the system that he has designed is a bad system in itself, but because he has misjudged the functions which the political system of our community is there to serve, perhaps because his involvement in SecondLife is somewhat different (albeit certainly not inferior) in character to that of many others. It may be a very good system for [i:vi0smnll]somebody[/i:vi0smnll], but it is not the right system for [i:vi0smnll]us[/i:vi0smnll].

It, of course, follows from all that that, if a proper formal government is required, so too is a proper formal judiciary, and I think that Rudy agrees, at least for the most part, that what I propose is a proper, formal judiciary suitable for that task.

As to Aliasi's comments, although it may very well be that the practical decisions are often made in a rather more informal way than is minimally required by the institutions, as can be seen with the debate around the Judiciary Bill itself, the formal processes are nonetheless required to address the times when we do not agree, and provide a proper, fair, predictable, efficient means of resolving that disagreement. The point is that our current system is [i:vi0smnll]scaleable[/i:vi0smnll], whereas a more informal system, such as that which Rudy proposes, is not.

Incidentally, the reason that a town council is not a good anology for what we are doing, despite our size, is that a town is inevitably a subset of a nation, and the more serious and important matters are dealt with formally on a national level, leaving the town council, under power delegated from a national governmental institution, to deal with more minor matters. Since LindenLabs does not provide any form of government (SecondLife as a whole, in any event, is more like a world than a nation), that anology does not apply to us: we have to deal with not just the minor affairs of town planning, but the major affairs of economic regulation and the resolution of the most serious possible disputes that could arise between citizen and citizen or citizen and state.

For all those reasons, therefore, well-meaning though Rudy's plan no doubt is, there should not be any revolutionary constituitonal reform designed into making us less of a virtual nation and more of a virtual social club with faachwerks. We should be proud of our status as a virtual nation, and seek to augment that position, not to diminish it. Our current governmental structure, combined with the judiciary that I propose, is precisely what we need to go forward and show that virtual nationhood is more than just do-able, but is highly desirable and potentially greatly successful.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Rudy, when you expressed the idea of having a constitutional convention I was sympathetic to the idea. I don't understand why you now put forward the idea in opposition to Ashcroft's Judiciary Bill. Surely we can do both, though perhaps at different times?

There is a need for an examination of the constitution; both parties that contested the last election included manifesto commitments that would require constitutional amendments. The discussions currently underway or completed on the need for an Executive branch of government, Guild reform and a Civil Service are testament to that need. You will need to convince me, however, that a root-and-branch revision is really necessary though. Ashcroft has put forward a strong case, which I fully endorse, for why scaling back our system would be the wrong choice as we seek to expand. I would add to that the following observation. The Constitution was not developed in a short space of time, it took several people (Gwyn, and others, can fill you in on the detail) many weeks of intensive discussion to get the outcome achieved. I would question whether a similar investment of community time and resources was really the best use of it at this point in time.

If you really are posing a choice between the two I would far rather develop a legal system for Neufreistadt. It would mean achieving a (virtual) worlds' first - a functioning legal system in a virtual world. This is entirely necessary; the Lindens show very little interest in dealing with the kind of conflicts that are inevitable in a growing economy. I see a resident-originated system such as ours as fulfilling a need within Second Life. It would add greatly to the reputation of the CDS within SL and is entirely in line with the way the Lindens are encouraging us to find solutions to our own problems.

I see Ashcroft's Judiciary Bill as part of the way we move forward in Neufreistadt. I'm not opposed to a constitutional convention as well, but we need to avoid the temptation of too much sterile navel-gazing. We need to be looking outwards to the rest of SL, expanding our territory and our field of influence and drawing in the people who are serious about this world of ours.

Rudy Ruml
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:27 am

Responding to Ashland and Patroklus

Post by Rudy Ruml »

To be clear, I have two proposals and they are not coupled. One is a constitutional convention in which the evident problems with the existing constitution can be discussed, changes proposed, and perhaps a referendum on changes planned. As a participant in that convention, I will propose for discussion what I suggested in my forum post above.

Thank you Ashcroft, ever the rationalist, and Patroklus, ever the realist, for you good comments. I remain, however, the e-value-ative, political intuitionist.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1hnt6rh3]I see Ashcroft's Judiciary Bill as part of the way we move forward in Neufreistadt. I'm not opposed to a constitutional convention as well, but we need to avoid the temptation of too much sterile navel-gazing. We need to be looking outwards to the rest of SL, expanding our territory and our field of influence and drawing in the people who are serious about this world of ours.[/quote:1hnt6rh3]

Thank you for your support :-) Perhaps the greatest reason of all why we need the constitution and legal system like that of a state, rather than like that of a social club, is that our government has [b:1hnt6rh3]executive power[/b:1hnt6rh3] over [b:1hnt6rh3]assets with non-trivial real-world value[/b:1hnt6rh3].

It is the need to regulate that sort of power that means that tiny states with fewer than a hundred thousand citizens, such as Monaco, the Vatican and the Isle of Man (which depends on the UK for its foreign policy and some other things) all have constitutions and legal systems with as much complexity and formality as those of the largest countries, whereas the largest membership organisations, though their members may number the millions, have vastly simpler and less structures. Formality and complexity are needed to regulate power: the more power, the more formality and complexity needed to regulate it.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":ebw1i6hg]
I see Ashcroft's Judiciary Bill as part of the way we move forward in Neufreistadt. I'm not opposed to a constitutional convention as well, but we need to avoid the temptation of too much sterile navel-gazing. We need to be looking outwards to the rest of SL, expanding our territory and our field of influence and drawing in the people who are serious about this world of ours.[/quote:ebw1i6hg]

Cry pardon, Patroklus, but I [i:ebw1i6hg]also[/i:ebw1i6hg] feel our problem is sterile navel-gazing... though not perhaps in the way you mean.

After I read some of the backlog on the old LL forum, and having had the experience of what many of the founding members of Neualtenburg have had to say, I've had the feeling the project was started mostly as "Let's make a virtual city-state!" without consideration for what later became the true problem/goal, and thereby a cute little toy government was created that would do any high school Student Government proud.

The true problem at hand is this: "how do we share resources, and do it in such a way that all of the stakeholders/citizens have a voice in how it is done, without relying on the neutral apathy of the Lindens or a single "enlightened despot"/"landlord"?"

Save for that last phrase, this problem has been solved many times already in Second Life, giving the lie to Ashcroft's statement about executive power over non-trivial resources. If one considers most of these other projects are being run as businesses, with "keeping the customers happy" as a core guideline, even that last is mitigated somewhat. I might note these other projects are, by most metrics, much more [i:ebw1i6hg]successful[/i:ebw1i6hg] than Neufreistadt...

One may reasonably ask, then, why I continue to hold land in the project. However much of a mess I might think the government is, all of the citizens seem to be at least well-disposed to the idea of a democratically-run sim, or even a continent. This is pleasing to me as a personal matter and I think, in the long run, is the best way to go. Neufreistadt may not be the ultimate banner-carrier, however. There are also the matters of sentiment - I have a lot of good memories here - and that of a social contract; I agreed to live by thus-and-such guidelines when I came here, and so I intend to.

With all this in mind, is it really such a coincidence that the most productive moments in this project's history have been when the established government was barely given lip-service? I've done work for the city while not being in the Guild, without the Guild being given first right of refusal. My first build, for a lengthy time the major landmark outside the walls, violated the covenant on several points. Hell, at one point I barely missed being Dean of the Scientific Council by a mere roll of the die. During most of my time here, the Constitution was fundamentally broken (being written under the assumption that Neualtenburg consisted of an SL group, using land on the mainland, paying tier to Linden Lab) and the broken bits were quite simply ignored until people got around to amending it. (I was one of the forerunners in suggesting such amendments.)

To me, this is not a sign that the people are broken and we need to buckle down and live by the government and make a legal system to enforce it. [i:ebw1i6hg]It is a sign the government is broken.[/i:ebw1i6hg] During my infamous rejection of the legitimacy of the sim government, I accused the citizens of Neualtenburg of merely having a bit of complex roleplay. I re-accepted the government when it became clear to me that the citizenry of that time did have a true committment, but I have continued to have reservations.

My opinion has not appreciably changed to this day. The difference between Neufreistadt and Caledon, ElvenGlen, and so forth? They at least know they aren't actually Victorian aristocrats and elves.

Perhaps it would be considered a political mistake to be so contentious right before the RA are about to make their final decision for a job I'm a candidate for. On the other hand, I have never hidden my opinions, and I hold the honest hope that having a single executive in some area of the project's running [i:ebw1i6hg]might[/i:ebw1i6hg] help us with some of the above problems... might.

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

The biggest problems I see with a direct democracy approach are ones of participation and scheduling. Consider the following:

1. 4 am SLT on Saturdays was the only time that worked for the five sitting members of the RA to have synchonous in world meetings.

2. When we did have a town hall meeting, only half the citizenry showed up.

3. Since we are now spread across 12 RL time zones from Rudy at SLT -2 to Diderot at SLT + 9, a town hall meeting or constitutional convention would be terribly difficult to organize. Even if we are just working around work and sleep, one has about a five hour window between asking Rudy to be up predawn and asking Diderot to stay up all night. and that's only on weekends. A more direct form of democracy would all but require that we move to fully asynchronous government. My experience is that the existing seven day discussion/vote procedure make things move even more slowly.

4. I would suggest that our existing government is in fact closer to Rudy's model than Ashcroft's. We have a town council (the RA) with a chair and a separate single executive (as opposed to investing mayoral powers in the RA chair - darn, why didn't I think of that :) )

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

Another thing that strikes me is that Ashcroft and Pat seem to be very aspirational in their thought process. In building a judiciary branch , they seek to create a government we will need if we grow as we hope to. In proposing something more direct, Rudy suggests we scale down the government to something sized to meet our present need.

Aliasi points out correctly that , while we sit and argue about how many judges and chancellors can dance on the head of a pin, the Colonia Nova expansion and even the Gwyethstrasse relocation are stalled.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":3r3uwvr3]Another thing that strikes me is that Ashcroft and Pat seem to be very aspirational in their thought process. In building a judiciary branch , they seek to create a government we will need if we grow as we hope to.[/quote:3r3uwvr3]

Not quite: I am seeking to create the state that we need [i:3r3uwvr3]now[/i:3r3uwvr3] if we ever hope to expand.

[i:3r3uwvr3]Edit[/i:3r3uwvr3]: In any event, there is no reason not to think big. There is an obvious disadvantage to having a government not suitable for getting any bigger (i.e., that it is difficult to get bigger), but nobody has to date pointed out any real [i:3r3uwvr3]disadvantages[/i:3r3uwvr3] of having a government/legal system that is suitable, not just for how we are now, but for how we hope to be in the future. Indeed, we need to start building the government for the state that we aspire to be [i:3r3uwvr3]before[/i:3r3uwvr3] we reach our desired size, so that the system can be fully bedded in and working properly by the time that we get to the size where we need it even more than we do now. As I have written elsewhere, it may be too late to buy a bigger bookshelf [i:3r3uwvr3]after[/i:3r3uwvr3] we have finished all the interior decorating and moved in all the tenants.

[quote:3r3uwvr3]Aliasi points out correctly that , while we sit and argue about how many judges and chancellors can dance on the head of a pin, the Colonia Nova expansion and even the Gwyethstrasse relocation are stalled.[/quote:3r3uwvr3]

Although there is no reason to suppose causality between the two.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Virtual reality and real virtuality

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[b:2qhkwyn2][u:2qhkwyn2]Virtual reality and real virtuality[/b:2qhkwyn2][/u:2qhkwyn2]

Aliasi: I do not have time to respond to you in detail because I am just about to go to a conference, but I will say this: there is an important difference between the virtual and the make-believe. Although our streets and houses are just electrical impulses on a server somewhere in California, we are real people interacting with each other and dealing with things that have real economic value.

The Caledons may very well realise that they are not actually in Victorian England, just as we realise that we are not actually in medieval Bavaria, but, just as people who go to Rudy's seminars are not there because they are play-acting being students, so too is our government more than just a game. As I have written before, we are an experiment in a novel way to manage virtual resources in a fair and just way. Just as in real life, our fledgling democratic state has not expanded in the early stages (and we are still in the infancy of virtual worlds) as fast as the autocratic states, but, just as in real life, a democratic state with a proper judicial system has the potential to become far more effective in the long-term than any autocracy. We cannot be certain that our model will succeed (we cannot be certain that we are not dreaming reading/writing this post now), but the chance of it succeeding is good enough, and the reward big enough, to make a serious run of it.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Re: Virtual reality and real virtuality

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1m4u5twf]
Aliasi: I do not have time to respond to you in detail because I am just about to go to a conference, but I will say this: there is an important difference between the virtual and the make-believe. Although our streets and houses are just electrical impulses on a server somewhere in California, we are real people interacting with each other and dealing with things that have real economic value.

The Caledons may very well realise that they are not actually in Victorian England, just as we realise that we are not actually in medieval Bavaria, but, just as people who go to Rudy's seminars are not there because they are play-acting being students, so too is our government more than just a game. As I have written before, we are an experiment in a novel way to manage virtual resources in a fair and just way. Just as in real life, our fledgling democratic state has not expanded in the early stages (and we are still in the infancy of virtual worlds) as fast as the autocratic states, but, just as in real life, a democratic state with a proper judicial system has the potential to become far more effective in the long-term than any autocracy. We cannot be certain that our model will succeed (we cannot be certain that we are not dreaming reading/writing this post now), but the chance of it succeeding is good enough, and the reward big enough, to make a serious run of it.[/quote:1m4u5twf]

You took many words to say something I've often said with a few: the world is virtual, but the people are not.

On the other hand, the world [i:1m4u5twf]is[/i:1m4u5twf] virtual and the people are [i:1m4u5twf]not[/i:1m4u5twf]. Calling a non-profit co-operative a nation doesn't make it a nation; The UN is unlikely to accept our application for membership. My point is even WITH growth, our present system is far too complex; I do not anticipate a point where it would actually be useful until and unless we expand to the size of Dreamland. Even then, I believe better methods can be invented. It is true that we are not playing a game - we've got better than US$1000 in the treasury, after all! - but I believe seeing the situation for what it is, rather than bending insititutons to fit what it is thought to be, is vital.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: Virtual reality and real virtuality

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":2jvvz56h]You took many words to say something I've often said with a few: the world is virtual, but the people are not.

On the other hand, the world [i:2jvvz56h]is[/i:2jvvz56h] virtual and the people are [i:2jvvz56h]not[/i:2jvvz56h]. Calling a non-profit co-operative a nation doesn't make it a nation; The UN is unlikely to accept our application for membership. My point is even WITH growth, our present system is far too complex; I do not anticipate a point where it would actually be useful until and unless we expand to the size of Dreamland. Even then, I believe better methods can be invented. It is true that we are not playing a game - we've got better than US$1000 in the treasury, after all! - but I believe seeing the situation for what it is, rather than bending insititutons to fit what it is thought to be, is vital.[/quote:2jvvz56h]

I am afraid that you have not really addressed the issues that I raised in my post above: you start by oversimplifying what I wrote, and then use that as a basis (albeit without explaining the reasoning) to state that our present system is "too complex" (as with Rudy, however, you fail to show, as you must if your contention is that the system is "too complex" which specific parts of complexity have which particular detrimental effects). You ignore the point that I make, for example, that our government is just as much a real government as Rudy's seminars are real seminars, or the point that, as well as being a mechanism for the interaction of real people, SecondLife is a means for the creation, distribution and exchange of items of intellectual property and portions of real-world computer hardware that have significant real-world economic value.

All the argument from people who claim that our present government is too complex (I shall call them the "minimalists", since the thing for which they are arguing is a minimalist government) proceed along the following lines: (1) we are presently small; (2) therefore we should have a minimal government and legal system; (3) our government and proposed legal system are not minimal; and therefore (4) our present government and my proposed legal system are a fundamentally bad idea and should be abolished forthwith and never implemented, respectively.

The arguments, however, have consistently failed to show [i:2jvvz56h]why[/i:2jvvz56h] it is that the absolute number of people (rather than the nature of the functions performed) should relate to the complexity of governmental institutions, or what precisely in our present (or my proposed) system is excess (in the sense that it produces an identifyable detriment) for our size, even if one were to accept that absolute number of peolple were the primary determinant. Therefore, proposition (2) does not flow from proposition (1), and premise (3) is not shown to be true (and, in fact, is false). The minimalists' arguments are essentially missing essential components necessary to demonstrate the truth of their claims. It is not possible to fill in those missing elements, because the claims are not true: as argued above, it is not absolute number of people that is the primary determinant of the necessary complexity of institutions, and in any event our governmental institutions are really rather minimal as they are now, and even the legal system that I propose is also really very minimal indeed compared to any real-world legal system.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Re: Virtual reality and real virtuality

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3g5sx6la]
The arguments, however, have consistently failed to show [i:3g5sx6la]why[/i:3g5sx6la] it is that the absolute number of people (rather than the nature of the functions performed) should relate to the complexity of governmental institutions, or what precisely in our present (or my proposed) system is excess (in the sense that it produces an identifyable detriment) for our size, even if one were to accept that absolute number of peolple were the primary determinant. Therefore, proposition (2) does not flow from proposition (1), and premise (3) is not shown to be true (and, in fact, is false). The minimalists' arguments are essentially missing essential components necessary to demonstrate the truth of their claims. It is not possible to fill in those missing elements, because the claims are not true: as argued above, it is not absolute number of people that is the primary determinant of the necessary complexity of institutions, and in any event our governmental institutions are really rather minimal as they are now, and even the legal system that I propose is also really very minimal indeed compared to any real-world legal system.[/quote:3g5sx6la]

I'm a rational anarchist and a libertarian, Ashcroft. My desired complexity of instutitions is "none, ideally, and as little as possible, pragmatically", since [i:3g5sx6la]some[/i:3g5sx6la] kind of organization is required, if only to prevent tragedies of the commons.

For me, the principle that a government cannot do good, but can only fail to do evil, and perhaps cause others to fail as well, is well-entrenched. Therefore, I feel my arguments DO follow; this discussion is a bit like a diehard capitalist arguing with a diehard communist.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: Virtual reality and real virtuality

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":2cbud5ii]
I'm a rational anarchist and a libertarian, Ashcroft. My desired complexity of instutitions is "none, ideally, and as little as possible, pragmatically", since [i:2cbud5ii]some[/i:2cbud5ii] kind of organization is required, if only to prevent tragedies of the commons.

For me, the principle that a government cannot do good, but can only fail to do evil, and perhaps cause others to fail as well, is well-entrenched. Therefore, I feel my arguments DO follow; this discussion is a bit like a diehard capitalist arguing with a diehard communist.[/quote:2cbud5ii]

Your arguments only follow, though, from your pososition that, all other things being equal, government is a very bad thing indeed, not from the propositions that we have few people, or that our terratory is virtual rather than real, from which you claimed that they followed in earlier posts.

However, you have now made your entire conclusion contingent on a claim (that government is bad) that you have not justified, and, as such, is wholly unsubstantiated. It is somewhat bizarre, to say to citizens of one of the few communities in SecondLife that have a government, and the only one that has a democratic government, that we should change our governmental institutions to some other kind of governmental institution because governmental institutions are, in most cases, inherently a bad idea.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Post Reply

Return to “Legislative Discussion”