Group franchulates and franchulate taxonomy

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

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

Group franchulates and franchulate taxonomy

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[b:muozl0fd][u:muozl0fd]The taxonomy of franchulates[/u:muozl0fd][/b:muozl0fd]

In the many posts that have of late proliferated on the subject of franchulates, one thing that has become clear is that, in order for things to work properly, we will need many different [i:muozl0fd]sorts[/i:muozl0fd] of franchulates: franchulates that have their own local government, franchulates whose local government is tied to another locality, franchulates on the mainland, franchulates on private islands, franchulates where there is just one group holding all the land, and franchulates with a group for each plot, and many more besides. Furthremore, Pelanor questioned the whole idea of calling them "franchulates" in any event, pointing out that, in the work of fiction in which the term was coined, they meant something very different to what they will mean with us. There is also another issue, to which allusion was made in the agenda recently posted of the CSDF's latest extraordinary meeting (not having attended that one, I await the transcript with some interest) of entire pre-existing groups joining the CDS en bloc, and how to accommodate the particular needs of such groups.

For that reason, it is necessary to define a number of very specific terms that can be used to apply to each class of franchulate so that we can be very precise in understanding what we are talking/writing/thinking about. I have already on other threads suggested some terms for some of the categories, but I will list them all here for completeness. I have dealt on those threads already with the substance of most issues, so only need to give an outline of the terms in question. However, as regards the needs of groups, I need to expand further below.

[b:muozl0fd]Groups and franchulates[/b:muozl0fd]

At recent CSDF meetings (as evidenced by the posted transcripts and agandas), there has been some discussion of a mechanism whereby an entire, pre-existing [i:muozl0fd]group[/i:muozl0fd] of people, possibly with their own internal organisational structure, could join the CDS as a franchulate, and how to accomodate them. (Incidentally, I refer to the CSDF's ideas in my post far more than the DPU's, not because I have any allegance to one or other of the parties, but because the CSDF holds open meetings, whereas the DPU does not, so the CSDF's plans and ideas are rather more accessible).

There are likely to be three broad sorts of people/groups who become franchulates: (1) individuals; (2) loose groups (often of friends or acquaintances, or commercial associates not forming part of a specific commercial organisation); and (3) social groups formed to discharge particular functions in a particular way.

The needs of the former two categories are already covered by existing ideas about franchulates; they are likely to want no more than a block of land on which to trade or live or do something else worthwhile, with all the benefits that a government and legal system has to offer them. They may prefer to have land in an area with strict themed covenants, or strict but un-themed covenants, in which their neighbours are engaged in a similar sort of enterprise, and may even be their friends. None of this is difficult to acheive under what has been proposed so far.

However, complexities arise when pre-existing social groups, who already have means of regulating their membership and activities, would like the financial and other advantages of holding their land under the CDS. How would their existing system of internal regulation fit in with the powers of the CDS government? A degree of local government, as already proposed by Pelanor, is part of the solution, but that does not solve the problem by itself. An example should illustrate the point: suppose that the Esperanto-speakers who currently reside in Neufreistadt decide that they want to have their own franchulate, in which all of the social and cultural events, signage, etc. will be in Esperanto. Suppose, for the sake of the example that there were 10 Esperanto-speakers, and that they bought between them a moderately large area on the mainland (say, enough for40 people to live), hoping to expand, making money by selling Esperanto merchandise and so forth. Now, suppose that their franchulate was well-run, and became popular: the land was good, the customers plentiful, the griefers few. Suppose that, in consequence of that, a large number of people, many of them not Esperanto speakers, joined the Esperanto franchulate (by acquiring the available land) in the hope of sharing in the commercial success of the area. Come time for local elections, the non-Esperanto speakers might outnumber the original Esperanto speakers. They might be elected to local government on a platform of "Let's not bother with this silly Esperanto language any more - let's just do things in English so that we can sell more stuff". What then would become of the original intentions of the group?

So, if a group with a particular purpose wishes to enfranchulate, it would likely want to reserve to itself some means of ensuring that the original aims of the group were not lost by an influx of new people after cheap commercial land in a good environment. In other words, some groups who enfranchulate need to be able to [i:muozl0fd]restrict future membership of the franchulate[/i:muozl0fd] to members of the group in question. In the Esperanto example, for instance, the franchulate could have a charter permitting only those who speak Esperanto or who have a strong interest in learning it to acquire land in that particular franchulate, which criteria would be decided by local government officials, themselves being members of the original group (or their elected successors). To make sure that franchulates do not impose capricious restrictions, or restrictions founded on common prejudice, the restrictions ought to require to be approved in advance by the CDS government, and set out, along with the local government structures, powers and remit (which may vary considerably between different franchulates depending on the character of locality sought to be acheived), and the theme (if any) in a notarised [b:muozl0fd]charter[/b:muozl0fd] for each franchulate. Franchulates that restrict membership in this way should be known as [b:muozl0fd]restricted[/b:muozl0fd] franchulates.

[b:muozl0fd]Franchulates compared to Neufreistadt/Colonia Nova/future such islands[/b:muozl0fd]

Another important conceptual point about franchulates is exactly how they differ from our existing and planned private island sims. I wrote a little on the cultural and political aspect of this point in one of my other posts, but I should expand on it in a slightly more conceputal way here. A [i:muozl0fd]franchulate[/i:muozl0fd] is a region (whether it be a mainland area, or a private island) where an individual, group, or set of previously unrelated individuals or groups who are happy to live next to each other for the financial advantages of the bulk discounts that we can offer on the mainland, or the advantages of living on part of a private island, have taken the initiative and paid money to the CDS for the CDS to acquire from Linden Labs on their behalf some land, and hold it for them (on terms some of which would be negotiated between the individual(s) and/or group(s) in question and the CDS, and settled in the charter), those individual(s) and/or group(s) having the right as against the CDS, enforcable in the CDS courts, to occupy that land exclusively on the terms set out in land deeds in respect of the parcels in question, apportioned between those individual(s) and/or group(s) as agreed when the charter was negotiated. (If these are not to be called franchulates, then [i:muozl0fd]"Chartered region"[/i:muozl0fd] might be an alternative, although I rather suspect that changing the name from "franchulates" now might cause some confusion).

Neufreistadt, Colonia Nova, and future such private island sims, however, are acquired by the CDS prospectively, either out of existing reserves, or on the basis of loans (or a combination of the two), and people of all sorts are then encouraged to become citizens there by buying land directly from the government. For this sort of region, there would be no charter, so it might be termed a [i:muozl0fd]"Non-chartered region"[/i:muozl0fd].

One further point: much of the discussion until now has been ambiguous as to whether franchulates/chartered regions will be acquired already full, or whether they will be acquired with room to expand, and, if the latter, who should bear the financial cost of the unfilled land at the beginning. For the sake of flexibility, I suggest that it be possible to acquire a franchulate with some unfilled land: it may very well help us to expand faster if we do that. In some, exceptional cases, it might be worthwhile for the CDS to pay itself for the unfilled land out of central funds, although that should requiure specific authority from the RA on each occasion. More usually, I propose that unfilled land be paid for by the individual(s) and/or group(s) who first propose the franchulate, by requiring them to pay between themselves an amount into the financial reserves of the local government group (in the SL sense of "group") to pay for the monthly fees, as well as requiring them to pay the purchse fees for the land itself. However, those monies should be treated as a sort of a loan to be repaid to the initial charterers if, and only if, the funds of the local government are reimbursed in time when the unfilled land is filled and turns a profit. If, conversely, the franchulate is not a success, and becomes insolvant, then the CDS should have the power to take over the running of the local government (but only after a court order declaring the locality to be irredeemably insolvant), and sell off any unfilled land, either to new citizens, or even sell it out of CDS status if nobody can be found to occupy it. Existing residents of the land should not be forced out merely because the region has become insolvant, but their fees may increase if the region is no longer large enough, after land has been sold outside the CDS, to maintain the bulk discounts. Once a region has been delcared irredeemably insolvant, the original charterers should not be able to recover any loan advanced to the local government against unoccupied land acquired on execution of the charter. In those cases where money has been advanced from CDS central funds to pay for unoccupied land in the hope of expansion, that should also be treated as a loan, and have the same rules as where it is made by the charterers. No interest should be payable in either case unless it is expressly provided for in the charter.

Also, we have so far imagined that all groups will be pre-existing groups that get together between themselves and decide to enfranchulate before ever approaching us. That may be true in many cases, but there will be cases where individuals want to have some land on the mainland under the CDS, but could not afford (or would not want to pay for) enough land to make it worthwhile having a franchulate all to themselves. In those cases, those individuals ought to be able to register an interest on our website, and be put onto a waiting list until enough other such individuals register as is worthwhile them being made a group and forming an unrestricted franchulate. People expressing an interest should be required to state how much land that they want, what they want to do with it (residential, retail, events, etc.), and what, if any, theme (etc.) that they need/desire, so that they can be matched with likeminded people.

[b:muozl0fd]Franchulate nomenclature[/b:muozl0fd]

Finally, a list of all of the various (and often overlapping) categories of franchulates and franchulate-related concepts.

[u:muozl0fd][i:muozl0fd]General concepts[/i:muozl0fd][/u:muozl0fd]

* [b:muozl0fd]Region[/b:muozl0fd] - an area of land, whether on the mainland or a private island, that falls under the jurisdiction of the CDS. Neufreistadt, Colonia Nova, and all franchulates are/will be regions.

* [b:muozl0fd]Unchartered region[/b:muozl0fd] - a region formed by acquisition from central funds, occupiers for whose land are found after acquisition, and which therefore does not have a charter. Neufreistadt and Colonia Nova are/will be unchartered regions.

* [b:muozl0fd]Chartered region[/b:muozl0fd] or [b:muozl0fd]franchulate[/b:muozl0fd] - a region formed when an individual, set of individuals, group or set of groups pays the CDS to acquire land on her/his/their behalf, who then hold it as of right under the CDS by means of a regional charter and land deeds.

* [b:muozl0fd]Regional charter[/b:muozl0fd] (the name of the particular kind of region may be substituted for "regional", for example, "provincial charter") - the document that sets out (1) the basis of the acquisition of a chartered region from the charterers, including the payment terms; (2) the name and theme of the chartered region; and (3) the constitution of the local government. We should always require that any local government be democratic (i.e., popularly elected in a regular election).

* [b:muozl0fd]Charterers[/b:muozl0fd] - those individuals or groups who form a franchulate/chartered region by getting together (whether on their own or with assistance from us) and taking out a charter in respect of a piece of land, paying the CDS to hold the land for them.

[u:muozl0fd][i:muozl0fd]Types of region[/i:muozl0fd][/u:muozl0fd]

* [b:muozl0fd]State[/b:muozl0fd] - a private island sim with a single government: Neufreistadt is, and Colonia Nova will be, states. All unchartered regions will probably be states.

* [b:muozl0fd]District[/b:muozl0fd] - a part of a private island sim with its own local government. Districts will be chartered regions sharing a private island, owned by the CDS, with other districts, when charterers want a part of a private island, rather than some mainland.

* [b:muozl0fd]Province[/b:muozl0fd] - a mainland region with its own local government.

* [b:muozl0fd]Borough[/b:muozl0fd] - a region, whether on a CDS-owned private island or the mainland, that does not have its own local government, and is afilliated to a district or province, but is not contiguous with it. This would work for smaller regions.

* [b:muozl0fd]Restricted region[/b:muozl0fd] - a region where local bylaws restrict the category of people who may acquire land in, and therefore become citizens of, a region in order to preserve the purpose of a particular group.

* [b:muozl0fd]Unrestricted region[/b:muozl0fd] - a region in which any person with enough money may become a citizen of that region by buying any available land.

* [b:muozl0fd]Single group region[/b:muozl0fd] - a mainland region in which one group (in the SL sense of "group") owns all the land, therefore enabling the citizens to have lower land fees, but reducing the flexibility with which they may dispose of their land - see [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 4:muozl0fd]here[/url:muozl0fd] for details.

* [b:muozl0fd]Multiple group region[/b:muozl0fd] - a mainland region in which each parcel is held by a separate group, enabling people who hold land under the CDS to have the same flexibility of estate tools as on private islands, but without it being possible to have any discounted rate - see [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 4:muozl0fd]here[/url:muozl0fd] for details.

[u:muozl0fd][i:muozl0fd]Legal terms[/i:muozl0fd][/u:muozl0fd]

* [b:muozl0fd]Bylaw[/b:muozl0fd] - legislation made by a local government body applying only to the region in which it was made.

* [b:muozl0fd]Regional court[/b:muozl0fd] - an inferior Court of Common Jurisdiction sitting in a particular region, and hearing cases that relate to citizens of that region (referred to as "local courts" in the original exposition of my proposed legal system). "Regional court" is the generic name, and individual courts will take their names from the particular region in question, for example, the "[i:muozl0fd]Colonia Nova State Court[/i:muozl0fd]" or the "[i:muozl0fd]Nowhere Provincial Court[/i:muozl0fd]". Such courts will only be created if there is demand for them and if resources are available to do so.

[b:muozl0fd]A note on local government[/b:muozl0fd]

I am aware that the CSDF and DPU take different views on how much power should be devolved to the regions, the DPU favouring a high degree of devolution, with effectively a federal government (eventually, I understand, the plan is for a senate, with representatives elected from each region), wheras the CSDF prefer a unitary republic. I have made much mention above of local government, however, I hope that the overall structure that I propose is as neutral as possible on exactly how much power that each local government should have.

It must be acknowledged that franchulates/chartered regions need [i:muozl0fd]some[/i:muozl0fd] form of local government (specific purpose groups, for example, need to be able to have some control over the character of the environment, etc.), and, if we grow large enough through enfranchulation/chartering, we will undoubtedly need to devolve some administrative tasks to the localities for practical purposes.

However, exactly how [i:muozl0fd]much[/i:muozl0fd] power to devlove should vary with each charter: some larger pre-existing groups may be more autonomous than some smaller loose collections of people that we have brought together ourselves. The charter system that I propose should give that element of flexibility. Awarding charters should be within the remit of the Chancellor, who should have a considerable ambit of discretion to choose what bylaw making power that local governments have. However, there must be an upper limit on such power: whilst regions need to be able to have [i:muozl0fd]some[/i:muozl0fd] degree of autonomy, they will all need to exhibit some minimum degree of conformity if they are to be in the CDS. Because it is the Chancellor who should be granting charters, the limits of the local government's power should be, broadly, the limits of the power that the Chancellor already has to delegate (the constitution provides that the Chancellor may delegate any of her powers). The RA may wish to impose some specific requirements on what the Chancellor may do in granting charters (for example, by requiring that the constitutions of all local governments mandate democratic elections), but, generally, the Chancellor's existing (and quite broad) powers are largely adequate for the task (although it might be worthwhile amending the constituiton to provide the Chancellor with the specific power to grant charters).

This flexibility will hopefully mean that the level of autonomy that is considered appropriate at the time of the grant of the charter will be enshrined into the region's local constiution once and for all, so that the changing winds of government and political opinion in the central government of the CDS does not have the capacity to destabilise existing arrangements in the regions, which might make the locals distinctly unhappy.

I hope that this discussion has been illuminating - any constructive feedback would, as ever, very much be appreciated.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Pelanor Eldrich
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:07 am

A personal question...

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

Hi Ash,

All told that's a very complete and well thought out taxonomy and I thank you. A personal question though, are you a student or academic at the moment? How do you find time for this stuff? -Pel :D

Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: A personal question...

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":1r27zt5p]All told that's a very complete and well thought out taxonomy and I thank you.[/quote:1r27zt5p]

My pleasure :-)

[quote:1r27zt5p]A personal question though, are you a student or academic at the moment? How do you find time for this stuff?[/quote:1r27zt5p]

No, actually, I am a practising barrister (lawyer). I live some distance from where I usually go to court, though, and I thought of this particular idea whilst waiting for the train home, since it had troubled me somewhat that there had not yet been precise exposition as to how to deal with pre-existing groups wanting to enfranchulate/charter, and that there were not clear concepts for what I now call regions, or a clear conceptualisation of the distinction between franchulates and what I now call unchartered regions.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1188
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Ashcroft,

After reading your post (and yes, I know, if I didn't read it, you'd be yelling at me the whole week to make me read it :) ), I think that you're mixing up two things (probably intentionally so), and, in spite of your thoroughness, left out one alternative, which I will not mention, since Jon will soon propose it formally.

The two things here are basically "forms of local government" and "territory expansion" (which includes "population expansion"). As you very well pointed out, the DPU and the CSDF have, indeed, very different views on the model of "local/regional/national government". I would certainly agree that some sort of local government — a locally elected representative group; local judges or at least arbitrators/moderators — would be advisable if we were talking about groups of thousands of people, and not just a handful. The CSDF's approach to that is quite distinct, and is more targetted towards "strong local representation at the central government", which is different from "local government".

Your model correctly points out that, once one starts to think about all different possibilities of how the franchulates can organise themselves, even trying to group them into a single series of "possible local organisations" will give us plenty of rather different answers! Under your suggestions, truly, the name "Confederation of Democratic Simulators" is highly appropriate — a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation:2cj4g3oz]confederation[/url:2cj4g3oz] (as opposed to a federation) usually has quite different "models" of government, but are somewhat (loosely) bound under a common central government, to which they transfer some of their powers, while retaining a large degree of autonomy and the right to secede.

Now this discussion is mostly important towards defining what the [i:2cj4g3oz]Confederation of Democratic Simulators[/i:2cj4g3oz] is supposed to be!

In any case, I like the notion of having a "charter" for each franchulate, as opposed to merely a set of "covenants". Covenants only regulate the urban planning in the sim; you very correctly point out that the social aspects should be regulated as well! Your example is not too far-fetched. One could imagine several wildly different communities (imagine Caledon, with their Victorian social conventions; or a furry community...), with their own local/regional rules, to enforce their charters locally or even apply to the CDS government for aid in enforcing them. Citizens living on the franchulates should thus pick the charter + set of covenants that most suit to their tastes; if they dislike any available ones, they would always be welcome on "unchartered regions".

All in all, I like that approach very much! Now it's up to our legislative body to incorporate that concept under a bill. As we speak, I'm filling people's minds with this idea, to see how they react to it — but I imagine that they'll be very receptive, especially the ones that will defend that "the CDS is about the people" (as opposed to "cute buildings"), so, social interaction should/could have some form of regulation/protection as well.

Nice work :) Thanks!

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

User avatar
Pelanor Eldrich
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:07 am

This franch thing has really taken on a life of its own...

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

Just thought I'd throw that out there. Some of these proposals can be quite complex and open to mistaken interpretation. I'd like perhaps some case studies to illustrate the full mechanics of these proposals:

-Franchulates (in various flavors)
-Judiciary (in various scenarios)

This can be viewed as an argument for Ranma's and Rudy's Minimalist approach. Perhaps they can join Rubiyat (who wanted to found a Republican/Conservative party). Maybe Diderot's Freedom and Justice party fits this mold.

I really think it's an argument for more effective and accessible communication. I'd like to be able to say, Job Finder Inc. you'd be best served by a xyz franchulate. Here are the easy to digest details, with illustrations and case study: http://cds.info/franch/xyz.htm

In all seriousness, a web page with bullets and diagrams, and economic charts would really help us all get on the same page with some of this stuff. Some of us are at our limit at the ability to read (length/time), others at the limit of our abstract thinking.

Two 20 page PDFs come to mind:

-A history of Neualtenburg/CDS
-CDS Civics (with additional pop-up illustrations of proposals for RA members)

I'm only half kidding. Actually UZ had a good diagram of a proposal for faction seat replacement about 6 months ago.

Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gwyneth Llewelyn":14uxjfbm]Ashcroft,

After reading your post (and yes, I know, if I didn't read it, you'd be yelling at me the whole week to make me read it :) ), I think that you're mixing up two things (probably intentionally so), and, in spite of your thoroughness, left out one alternative, which I will not mention, since Jon will soon propose it formally.[/quote:14uxjfbm]

I am intrigued as to what that alternative might be ;-)

[quote:14uxjfbm]The two things here are basically "forms of local government" and "territory expansion" (which includes "population expansion"). As you very well pointed out, the DPU and the CSDF have, indeed, very different views on the model of "local/regional/national government". I would certainly agree that some sort of local government — a locally elected representative group; local judges or at least arbitrators/moderators — would be advisable if we were talking about groups of thousands of people, and not just a handful. The CSDF's approach to that is quite distinct, and is more targetted towards "strong local representation at the central government", which is different from "local government".[/quote:14uxjfbm]

Do you really think that it is practical to have the Chancellor of the whole CDS deciding exactly where the wishing well should go in Quaint Faery Land?

"Local government" can be as minimal as a council of three locally elected people with some responsibility for planning the public areas, and possibly the administration of enforcement mechanisms (covenant enforcement and marshals of the peace). It does not [i:14uxjfbm]have[/i:14uxjfbm] to be that minimal, of course: no doubt, many on the DPU may wish it to be more than that, but the advantage of local government in at least a minimal form is that the national administrative structures are not overburdened with every tiny detail of public administration in a huge number of areas all over the grid. There is probably little point in official representatives of a local area without at least a smidgen of local executive power.

Of course, no doubt, on your view of things, there should be more boroughs and fewer provinces, and, on the DPU view of things, fewer boroughs and more provinces. What I am hoping to convince both you/the CSDF people and the DPU people is that my proposed abstract structure works just as well for [i:14uxjfbm]both[/i:14uxjfbm] political models, and the debate about just what [i:14uxjfbm]degree[/i:14uxjfbm] of local autonomy that each region should have should take place [i:14uxjfbm]inside[/i:14uxjfbm] my structure, rather than [i:14uxjfbm]about[/i:14uxjfbm] it. I hope that because it is important for the sake of consistency, planning and publicity to start with a solid, clear outline structure on which everyone (or, at least, nearly everyone) agrees.

[quote:14uxjfbm]Your model correctly points out that, once one starts to think about all different possibilities of how the franchulates can organise themselves, even trying to group them into a single series of "possible local organisations" will give us plenty of rather different answers! Under your suggestions, truly, the name "Confederation of Democratic Simulators" is highly appropriate — a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation:14uxjfbm]confederation[/url:14uxjfbm] (as opposed to a federation) usually has quite different "models" of government, but are somewhat (loosely) bound under a common central government, to which they transfer some of their powers, while retaining a large degree of autonomy and the right to secede.[/quote:14uxjfbm]

I most certainly did not envisage a right to secede: indeed, as discussed above, I contend that no franchulate/region should have that right. Also, my structure does not necessarily involve very much autonomy for the regions, although it certainly allows for anything from a very minimal to moderately sizable amount. There should definitely be a strict upper limit on region autonomy, though, however big that we get (although you might not think my limit strict enough, and the DPU people might think it too strict).

[quote:14uxjfbm]Now this discussion is mostly important towards defining what the [i:14uxjfbm]Confederation of Democratic Simulators[/i:14uxjfbm] is supposed to be![/quote:14uxjfbm]

Quite!

[quote:14uxjfbm]In any case, I like the notion of having a "charter" for each franchulate, as opposed to merely a set of "covenants". Covenants only regulate the urban planning in the sim; you very correctly point out that the social aspects should be regulated as well! Your example is not too far-fetched. One could imagine several wildly different communities (imagine Caledon, with their Victorian social conventions; or a furry community...), with their own local/regional rules, to enforce their charters locally or even apply to the CDS government for aid in enforcing them. Citizens living on the franchulates should thus pick the charter + set of covenants that most suit to their tastes; if they dislike any available ones, they would always be welcome on "unchartered regions".[/quote:14uxjfbm]

The charters would not contain the substantive behavioural rules themselves, but the local [i:14uxjfbm]constituions[/i:14uxjfbm] that would give local governments the power to make bylaws containing those substantive behavoural rules. It would be silly for the CDS government to set the precise rules for local behaviour in, for example, a furry community. That is where the local councils come in.

[quote:14uxjfbm]All in all, I like that approach very much! Now it's up to our legislative body to incorporate that concept under a bill. As we speak, I'm filling people's minds with this idea, to see how they react to it — but I imagine that they'll be very receptive, especially the ones that will defend that "the CDS is about the people" (as opposed to "cute buildings"), so, social interaction should/could have some form of regulation/protection as well.

Nice work :) Thanks![/quote:14uxjfbm]

You are most welcome. Thank you for the feedback :-)

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

Re: This franch thing has really taken on a life of its own.

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":2ntfan0e]Just thought I'd throw that out there. Some of these proposals can be quite complex and open to mistaken interpretation. I'd like perhaps some case studies to illustrate the full mechanics of these proposals:

-Franchulates (in various flavors)
-Judiciary (in various scenarios)[/quote:2ntfan0e]

What sort of case studies would you like?

[quote:2ntfan0e]This can be viewed as an argument for Ranma's and Rudy's Minimalist approach. Perhaps they can join Rubiyat (who wanted to found a Republican/Conservative party). Maybe Diderot's Freedom and Justice party fits this mold.[/quote:2ntfan0e]

I am sure that you have read my many arguments about how making things less detailed and more vague actually makes them more complicated and difficult to understand; what you have written below suggests that that is so :-)

[quote:2ntfan0e]I really think it's an argument for more effective and accessible communication. I'd like to be able to say, Job Finder Inc. you'd be best served by a xyz franchulate. Here are the easy to digest details, with illustrations and case study: http://cds.info/franch/xyz.htm[/quote:2ntfan0e]

A capital idea. A job for our new PIO?

[quote:2ntfan0e]In all seriousness, a web page with bullets and diagrams, and economic charts would really help us all get on the same page with some of this stuff. Some of us are at our limit at the ability to read (length/time), others at the limit of our abstract thinking.[/quote:2ntfan0e]

Hmm... people [i:2ntfan0e]have[/i:2ntfan0e] limits of their abstract thinking? How does that work?

[quote:2ntfan0e]Two 20 page PDFs come to mind:

-A history of Neualtenburg/CDS
-CDS Civics (with additional pop-up illustrations of proposals for RA members)

I'm only half kidding. Actually UZ had a good diagram of a proposal for faction seat replacement about 6 months ago.[/quote:2ntfan0e]

We could do with a resident historian and political scientist. Actually, we already have a resident political scientist... now, if only we can persuade him to write a pamphlet explaining our constitution... ;-)

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: This franch thing has really taken on a life of its own.

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3hox6psg]
We could do with a resident historian and political scientist. Actually, we already have a resident political scientist... now, if only we can persuade him to write a pamphlet explaining our constitution... ;-)[/quote:3hox6psg]

I once held regular 'civics classes'. The constitution has changed since then, but I'm sure I could write such a thing... in my copious free time... although it would be a layperson's work.

User avatar
Pelanor Eldrich
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:07 am

Right.

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

I guess I was trying to say that people have limits to their ability to understand abstract concepts in a short amount of time.

For example, I find it difficult in chat mode to fully explain my mortgage procedure to a prospective client. A notecard or webpage with pictures often helps. Then I usually answer questions by chat.

When referring to scenarios, I mean just some concrete examples:

Walk me through a Judge of Common Jurisdiction selection etc.
Walk me through a group franchulate purchase of type x, for example.
Let's look at some hard financial numbers and projections etc. (graphs/charts).

Some of the legislation is getting to the point where Ted Kennedy needs his graphs and charts. :)

Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Local government and attracting groups to the CDS

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[b:7ygmx39y][u:7ygmx39y]Local government and attracting groups to the CDS[/b:7ygmx39y][/u:7ygmx39y]

On the subject of the local government of regions (on which I know that the CSDF and DPU have somewhat different policies in respect of which I constantly hope that some middle ground will be found), I have just had a very interesting discusion with Redakisto Noble (editor of [i:7ygmx39y]The Democrat[/i:7ygmx39y], and prominent member of the Esperanto community in world), the gist of which he has given me permission to reproduce here.

The discussion was about the level of autonomy that groups under the CDS should have. He initially started off by stating that he thought that the CDS would not be as popular as we thought that it would be because it was insufficiently flexible and dynamic, and that other, more flexible and dynamic groups could provide what he termed "a government [i:7ygmx39y]service[/i:7ygmx39y]", including dispute resolution, without as much top-down control as he thought that there would be in the CDS.

Initially, it appeared that we disagreed: I said that one cannot provide a government service without a degree of central control, but that there could be forms of local government. Eventually, however, we came to realise that we did not disagree very much at all, and that, essentially, he was quite happy for local government by a locally-elected council, where the group founding the region gets at least some say in the constitution of that council, but under the over-arching structure of the CDS for its national constitutional law, as well as a national court system, law of contract, company law, general definition of harassment (albiet with account being taken in that regard of local norms), but with local governments having their own budget, power to set their own local themes and covenants and pass bylaws, such as, in the example that we agreed was applicable, requiring people in an Esperanto region to speak Esperanto except in certain circumstnaces, and to mandate that all signage be in Esperanto.

Initially, Redakisto had intimated that, if the structure of the CDS was such as to require too great a top-down control by the central government of local affairs, that he would eventually choose to have his separate Esperanto community (for which no doubt many of us knows that he aspires) outside the CDS. However, under the model that I explained to him (the same model as I set out for local governance above), he seemed quite content that his Esperanto sim should be within the CDS on those terms.

I am writing all this largely because Redakisto is subbornly opposed to posting things on the forums (he said so himself), but also beacuse the point is an important one: he agreed with me that, if we did not allow some degree of local government for individual communities, many communities would be put off joining us when they would not be if we did allow for local governance, even of very small communities. He also agreed with me, when I explained it to him, that [i:7ygmx39y]some[/i:7ygmx39y] over-arching national law (constitutional law, contract law, company law, etc.) was desirable for the "government service", as he described it, to work. I suspect that we do not agree entirely about exactly how autonomous that local regions should be, but the strong impression that I got was that any such remaining disagreement was probalby not great, and was hopefully likely to be the subject of a compromise.

This strikes me as something upon which market research is required. I strongly suspect, as Redakisto does, that, without local government, the franchulates programme will be significantly less popular than with it. Giving groups their own local autonomy, whilst reataining central control and provision of services, is likely to be a powerful incentive to join. It would be a very great pity indeed if a large number of potential franchulate holders were put off us merely because we did not allow them the local government, in the structure that I outlined above, that they would want, and that is entirely practical to give even really very small communities.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”