Some thoughts on civics.

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

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

Some thoughts on civics.

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

After some in-world discussions and reading through the most recent CSDF meeting log, some points have come up that I thought might be useful to express. Since I no longer teach civics classes, I'm going to bore you all HERE, MUAHAHAHA... er... yes.

Firstly: the CDS is a representative democracy. What this actually [i:169g7nyg]means[/i:169g7nyg] is subtler than you might think.

Let's face it: most people don't really have an interest in personally running an organization, be it a city, a country, or a bridge club. Even among those that do, governing is a skill like any other; many people aren't going to be any good at it even if they'd [i:169g7nyg]like[/i:169g7nyg] to be.

Representative democracy, in theory, helps mitigate both problems. Instead of personally deciding the many, many boring issues that come up, you elect someone you trust to do it for you. And if they aren't any good... you vote them out of office! Yet, while the representatives do the day-to-day governing, the ultimate power remains with the people. If you personally chose a manager to make all of your life decisions, and obeyed that manager faithfully, the ultimate power of choice remains with you still as that manager is an employee.

But then you have the "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch" problem. This is why we do not have a straight up "majority wins" vote when voting for the Representative Assembly in the CDS, but use the Sainte-Laguë method, using scores generated by Borda-count ranked votes cast by citizens. (Yay copy-and-paste from the wiki!)

The combination works to give minorities greater power and generally encourages a coalition government; the Borda count tends to pick the "most tolerable", rather than "most popular". In the first vote I ever participated in, our then-Dean, Ulrika Zugzwang, added a fictious third party, the Costume Party. While this was widely seen as unethical, it [i:169g7nyg]did[/i:169g7nyg] nicely show the value of the voting method - as most MPP (Moderate People's Party) members voted for the CP over the SDF (Social-Democratic Faction, loosely a predecessor to the modern CSDF), and not a few SDF members did the same in reverse, the CP managed to win a seat because, while the CP had no first-place rankings and no actual voters or party members... they were the second choice of many. (Of course, Ulrika disregarded the CP votes when calculating RA seats... but that's all in the past, anyway.)

Thusly, with our current two major factions, I can safely say the quickest way to ensure you have a voice on the RA right now... is to form your own party. ;)

Secondly: It is true that the laws of the CDS are very mutable, which is a fancy word for "easy to change". Currently, constitutional amendments require a mere one vote extra! There are arguments for and against this. On the one hand, most countries have a lot more difficulty changing their constitutions. On the other hand, the most direct analogy for the CDS is [i:169g7nyg]not[/i:169g7nyg] a country, but a small town, eventually a collection of them, in a larger country. Most townships have a body of law that is vastly easier to change than those of the country in which they reside, but those laws end at the city limits.

Pretensions to micronation status aside, it may be more useful, when understanding our system, to look at Neufreistadt and Colonia Nova as small villages in the overarching "nation" of SL. We cannot easily - or at all - change Linden Lab policy. Our own laws end at our borders, and we can't even [i:169g7nyg]pretend[/i:169g7nyg] they apply outside our own sims, since we have no control. We can't even invade! :)

Thusly, it may not be so surprising that we can change even the foundation of our 'nation' with relative ease. An amendment is "merely" a sort of super-bill, not too difficult to pass... but not too difficult to veto, as the recent Judiciary Act has shown. Contrast this to many real-world democracies, where amendments cannot be overridden so easily. The result is our body of law can change as quickly as the virtual world we reside in... but a braking mechanism still exists in the form of the Scientific Council, who have powers not commonly found in any government body in RL democracies, so far as I know. (The veto of the Chancellor may or may not apply to amendments, although, as amendments require a 2/3rd vote to begin with, a vetoed amendment seems likely to pass regardless.)

Thirdly, and perhaps the most important to me personally... the CDS works because it is wholly voluntary. No one is forced to become a citizen - it's actually impossible for us to do that. Once a citizen, anyone is free to leave, with minor courtesies to be done if they wish the benefit of selling off their plot or returning at some future date. If you don't mind pulling up stakes and burning bridges, you can leave tomorrow, or later this hour. This is significant because this cannot be said of the vast majority of real-world governments. If you were born in the United States, but explain that you'd rather do without governmental services and refuse to pay taxes, the United States will object with force. We do not. This is the greatest protection of a minority view - the CDS is a non-profit co-operative in a sense, and cannot persist without a solid base of citizens. We cannot afford to alienate our population, because we will cease to exist if we do. We must maintain a friendly and conductive atmosphere... because we will not attract new citizens if we do not. And if someone is fed up... no need to become a revolutionary, you can just go elsewhere!

I've seen signs of both in my time here, but I think it is helpful for any citizen - in a faction or not, in a government position or not - to remember this last point most of all. In CDS, the voting booth is not the only vote cast. Citizens may also vote with their wallets, and their feet. In a way, I hope this mitigates the fear some, such as Ashcroft, have of overly-partisan politics making their way into the CDS... because we cannot [i:169g7nyg]afford[/i:169g7nyg] strict partisanship here.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Post by Jon Seattle »

I agree with all you say here, including founding new parties. Since you mentioned it, wanted to say something about the CSDF.

I came to Neufreistadt just as things came to a boiling point with Ulrika. In fact I asked Kendra at the time if there were SDF meetings and she told me there were not. My thought was what kind of democratic party is that?

I was interested in starting a moderate left party because in real life (illinois) I am a progressive democrat (roughly a social democrat in european political language) and hoped for a party in Neufreistadt that expressed my values and views.

CSDF was founded by myself, Moon, Gwyn, and Pat at a gathering in the Neufreistadt beergarten. Moon was elected as the first party head. As far as I know we have no connection to the old SDF.

From the very beginning we decided would be open and very democratic. We hold open meetings, welcome everyone to those meetings, and we publish the transcripts. We also have a party head “secretary generalâ€

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

Congratualtions to the CSDF

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

I just wanted to extend my heartfelt appreciation to the CSDF for its excellent organization, meetings and transcripts. This is something I'd like to see the DPU try as well.

Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

In the interests of transparency, perhaps I should make clear that I [b:32x9fq5k][i:32x9fq5k]was [/i:32x9fq5k][/b:32x9fq5k]a member of the SDF so, in that sense, there is a connection of sorts. (I'm not sure if Gwyn was ever a member of the old SDF, I'm sure she can answer for herself anyway). I joined because Kendra asked me to and I thought 'why not?' given that I was already considering which faction to join and was not attracted to either the DPU or the old MPP. It's also a matter of public record (on the archived SDF forums) that I tried very hard to revive the SDF once the departure of Kendra and Ulrika meant that the SDF had seats on the RA, but no representatives to fill them, and when SDF membership had fallen below the threshold of three set out in the Constitution. But I don't see that as meaning that the SDF was a predecessor to the CSDF any more than I see the DPU as a predecessor to the CSDF (given that we have members who were once in that faction too).

I see the CSDF as a new political grouping and I think we have demonstrated convincingly that we are not simply "the SDF reborn". We demonstrate our commitment to democracy and to transparency through holding open, public meetings and publishing transcripts of those meetings and by organising ourselves in an open, democratic fashion (through our Charter published on our forums for example). We hold elections for officer posts in the faction, the platform for elections is developed collaboratively etc etc.

I'd say that makes us pretty different.

Apologies for hijacking the thread, but I felt the need to reply in the same way that Jon did. I also agree that this civics information is extremely valuable. We must find a way to capture this for future citizens along with our history. Too much of this resides in our heads and in dusty forum threads when it ought to be more readily accessible. I think it would be more interesting for new citizens to know that we have a history and that they have joined a community with continuity and change. It would also be good to lay bare more of the thinking that went into the formation of our government institutions and constitution. Some (and only some) of our recent discussions has been influenced by the expectations of new citizens clashing with the vision (and the taken-for-grantedness of that vision) of the oldbies. This is always going to be an issue, continuity v. change, and we will always have a range of opinions from the conservative to the radical. But it might help to know [i:32x9fq5k]why [/i:32x9fq5k]and [i:32x9fq5k]how [/i:32x9fq5k]we got here so that we can decide if we want to change.

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 »

In no way did I intend to imply that the CSDF was a direct descendant, but rather, the values the majority of SDF members seemed to think the party stood for seemed to find a new life with the CSDF.

The organization is breathtaking, although the DPU's contrast is not by holding closed meetings... we just don't meet! :)

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
Rudy Ruml
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:27 am

Right On, Aliasi

Post by Rudy Ruml »

I agree with Aliasi up and down the line, and only wish to add this humble analysis.

Citizenship in CDS is defined by land ownership, and approximately 49 people by my count own land and are thus eligible for citizenship. I had trouble with the land ownership table, but assume it is 49. Nothing in my argument will change if I'm off by 5 or 10 people.

Now, CDS is not even a small town, but we have a government of this village that is over complex, clumsy in operation, confusing (at least to me), and over weighty. What I mean is that there is too much institutionalization of government, and this over institutionalization intervenes between the 49 citizens and the policies they may desire or oppose.

What is desirable? This is a question of what kind of democracy is best for 49 citizens. With due respect for all the hard work and honest democratic effort that went into the current political structure, and humility over my lack of experience in the CDS government, I suggest the following.

A citizen shall be any person who owns or rents land in CDS. [I had previously supported simple registration, but with a body politic so small (which means only those interested in voting), it can easily be swamped by evil one's registering a group of friends to influence policy or an election, if the following is approved.]

Each citizen should have the right to vote for their representatives on a CDS council in regularly scheduled elections by secret ballot. The count of votes would be as present.

These representatives should have the power to determine by council majority vote the mayor of the city, who would serve as its executive at the discretion of the council (which means the council can fire him).

These representatives, and the mayor with council approval, shall have the power to set up whatever agencies necessary and for the governance of the city, and how their personnel will be determined.

The citizens should have the power to recall representatives for any reason. (I disagree that this would be a source of instability. Rather, I believe it would mean a more responsible and citizen sensitive council.)

The citizen should have the power to propose and vote on initiatives concerning the governance of CDS. (Yes, this smacks of pure democracy, but CDS has only 49 citizens, much fewer than many societies and groups that operate as pure democracies. I don't think the criticism of pure democracy applicable to governing a city of, say, one million, is appropriate for 49 citizens, most of whom are among the politically active and know each other.)

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Rudy, I have to admit that I have a lot of time for your position though I don't think I will go along with your vision for a constitutional convention to set up a 'minimal government' along the line you outline above.

Here's why I sympathise with you: if you add up all the people who need to be part of the government machinery (to one degree or other), it's a substantially large portion of our population! The RA needs 5, the SC has 4 members (but could have up to 9), the AC currently has 3 members but really one person, the Guildmeister, is needed for government. We recently established the Office of the Chancellor and the recent Judiciary Bill (which is almost passed) will add, at the very least, one Chair of the Judiciary Commission, one Judge of Common Jurisdiction and a Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel of between 3 and 5 members. Not sure if I've missed anyone out, apologies if so. I make that between 16 and 23 people needed to occupy distinct roles in order to make our complicated democracy work (and that doesn't even count civil servants!) That does seem like overkill for a community of 49.

But, and here's where I disagree with Rudy, I think there are some good reasons (and some bad ones) why we tend towards complex solutions. The first is that the founders of Neufreistadt (Neualtenburg as was) were very careful to introduce a number of constitutional checks and balances in order to prevent a takeover by a temporary legislative majority and to defend minority rights. I think that these checks and balances have been very successful up until now. Our system has been 'tested to destruction' by one of our former members, seemingly hell-bent on destroying us; we survived and prospered.

Another good reason for the current setup is that it scales well. We can expand to CN and to five, ten more sims before we will need to reexamine our institutions of government. We should be positive, looking to expand, and have the institutions ready for growth.

So I have to disagree with you on this Rudy. But I think your idea could work and it would be attractive to many. I'm sure there are potential NFS citizens who are put off by our rigmarole and who would prefer something simpler. If we establish the CDS as an overarching 'Commonwealth' of independant democratic states (along the line Gxeremeio has outlined) then the entity you describe could be a member alongside NFS/CN+franchulates (the Democratic Republic of Neufreistadt anyone?) I'm not saying that you should leave and found a new democratic community in Second Life, I think you're a great addition to the community. But it is an option and, if democracy is to spread across the grid, I think it's more likely to come from splits and fissures within Neufreistadt/CDS than from people setting up their own communities completely separate from us.

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

Re: Right On, Aliasi

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Rudy Ruml":224t3pz3]Now, CDS is not even a small town, but we have a government of this village that is over complex, clumsy in operation, confusing (at least to me), and over weighty. What I mean is that there is too much institutionalization of government, and this over institutionalization intervenes between the 49 citizens and the policies they may desire or oppose. [/quote:224t3pz3]

You have before made this assertion, and, on the last occasion of your doing so, I asked you for reasoning in support of it. On that last occasion you provided none, and yet you make the assertion again, so I shall ask you again: what is the basis upon which you contend that the complexities of our present government are excess? In order for the complexities to be excess, specific complexities would have to cause specific problems. In respect of each complexity that you claim is excess, what, precisely, do you claim that the particular detriment in respect of that particular element of complexity? If you cannot identify specific detriments caused by specific elements of complexity, then there is not even any reason at all to believe that there is anything bad at all about our present institutions, and that is before we even get to the question of whether there are benefits that outweigh the detriments (and there are many benefits to the way in which we structure ourselves which would outweigh almost any detriments, even if there were any).

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

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":3ln0pwgw]So I have to disagree with you on this Rudy. But I think your idea could work and it would be attractive to many. I'm sure there are potential NFS citizens who are put off by our rigmarole and who would prefer something simpler. If we establish the CDS as an overarching 'Commonwealth' of independant democratic states (along the line Gxeremeio has outlined) then the entity you describe could be a member alongside NFS/CN+franchulates (the Democratic Republic of Neufreistadt anyone?) I'm not saying that you should leave and found a new democratic community in Second Life, I think you're a great addition to the community. But it is an option and, if democracy is to spread across the grid, I think it's more likely to come from splits and fissures within Neufreistadt/CDS than from people setting up their own communities completely separate from us.[/quote:3ln0pwgw]

Why do you think that the spread of democracy is more likely to come from internal splits and fissures, as you term it, rather than planned expansion by enfranchulation? The latter option would be far better and more stable (and far more attractive to many if they were able to have their own local government to deal with many issues, but, at the same time, not have to worry about creating a fully-fledged national government, which the CDS deal with).

The suggestion that Gxeremeio makes is one for a weak and fractured CDS with very little holding it together. The CDS that is currently in operation, and proposed to be expanded by the model of franchulates, is a strong and united CDS that could bring great benefits to much of SecondLife by virtue of being strong and united.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Rudy Ruml
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:27 am

The Best Checks and Balances System

Post by Rudy Ruml »

Thank you Pat for making an excellent argument for the changes I propose. The only problem with it, you believe, is the lack of sufficient checks and balances. I am a checks and balances supporter, and have it sewn on my underwear. It is one of the pillars of the democratic peace. But, those who constructed the current CDS political system (a heavy phrase for 49 people) were theoretically insightful and I must say with the greatest respect, practically naïve. You see, for 49 people the changes I suggest would give you the best checks and balances government. It would be DIRECTLY checked and balanced by the votes of its 49 citizens for their representatives, their ability to recall representatives, AND as Aliasi points out so nicely, their feet and wallets. You can do no better democratically than this.

Now, Ashford, your only argument against my suggestions is, as typical, lawyer-like questions. We've gone around on this, and you don't seem to understand that I am posing my 50 years (yes, Ii started as a political science student in 1956) of study and research on politics, 43 of them teaching as a political scientist, to your legal background, which however much I respect it and your scholarship on the law, is not on political systems and politics. So, I must ask you Ash, for your justification for opposing what I suggest.

You will argue back that I have not given good or even any reasons for my suggestions, to which I will respond I have--my authority, and thus my trained sense for democratic government, human rights, minority protection, and checks and balances. And I am asking you in return for your authority, or lacking that, your reason for opposing these humble suggestions. No more what-is-your -reason type questioning Ashford, which is a stealth argument with its own agenda that you have learned so well, and that I have let you use with me for the fun of it, but now, I want YOUR reasons.

User avatar
Tad Peckham
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:47 am

Post by Tad Peckham »

i think the only thing i can add to this discussion is this: rudy, your posts in this thread make my heart soar and my lips smile! i couldn't agree with you more.

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: The Best Checks and Balances System

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Rudy Ruml":3kraxlh0]Now, Ashford, your only argument against my suggestions is, as typical, lawyer-like questions.[/quote:3kraxlh0]

I am asking for reasons to support what you contend. The faculty of reasoning, and the importance of acting only for reasons, is not, I very much hope, something confined only to the legal profession, but is common amongst all civilised, intelligent humans.

[quote:3kraxlh0]We've gone around on this, and you don't seem to understand that I am posing my 50 years (yes, Ii started as a political science student in 1956) of study and research on politics, 43 of them teaching as a political scientist, to your legal background, which however much I respect it and your scholarship on the law, is not on political systems and politics. So, I must ask you Ash, for your justification for opposing what I suggest.[/quote:3kraxlh0]

I am asking you for your justification in suggesting it. If somebody who had spent even longer studying political science than you had opposed your theory of the democratic peace and, in support of that opposition, cited no reason other than the length of time that he or she had been studying the subject, would you accept that person's position, or would you ask for detailed resons in support of it?

[quote:3kraxlh0]You will argue back that I have not given good or even any reasons for my suggestions, to which I will respond I have--my authority, and thus my trained sense for democratic government, human rights, minority protection, and checks and balances. And I am asking you in return for your authority[/quote:3kraxlh0]

What has authority to do with anything? Nobody needs authority to ask a person for reasons. Assessing what is right does not depend on weighing the authority of those who make the claims, but by evaluating the inherent merits of what is being claimed. You seem to be invoking the positive (rather than the more usual negative) form of the [i:3kraxlh0]ad hominem[/i:3kraxlh0] logical fallacy: "I am good at this, so I must be right". That does not follow. If you were right, you would have no trouble in producing reasoning to support your claims: after all, how could you possibly have reached your claims without having applied reasoning in the first place? It is hardly a difficult matter to recall the thought process through which you have gone to reach these conclusions. No matter how long you have been spending studying political science, you are not infallible, and you should not ask anybody to treat you as if you are. I notice that you take great lengths, in your writings on the democratic peace, to provide a great deal of good reasoned argument and empirical evidence to support your claims. If you do not expect people to accept what you claim about the area in which you have the greatest expertise, the democratic peace, without careful, reasoned arguments backed with empirical evidence, why should you expect people to accept what you claim about the government of a virtual nation when you cannot substantiate your claims with any reasoning whatsoever?

[quote:3kraxlh0]or lacking that, your reason for opposing these humble suggestions.[/quote:3kraxlh0]

That there is no reason at all for believing a proposition is a conclusive reason for not believing it.

[quote:3kraxlh0]No more what-is-your -reason type questioning Ashford, which is a stealth argument with its own agenda that you have learned so well, and that I have let you use with me for the fun of it, but now, I want YOUR reasons.[/quote:3kraxlh0]

If there is no reason to do something, then that is reason enough not to do it. If I said to you "Say 'I am a walrus' five times over", would you do it if I provided you with no reason? Why, precisely, do you think that asking you to justify your claims is a "stealth argument", and what exaclty do you claim that a stealth argument is? What exactly are you referring to when you claim that me asking for reasons "has its own agenda"? What, precisely, do you think that agenda is, and why, precisely, do you think that it is such?

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: Right On, Aliasi

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Rudy Ruml":17wcng2k]What is desirable? This is a question of what kind of democracy is best for 49 citizens. With due respect for all the hard work and honest democratic effort that went into the current political structure, and humility over my lack of experience in the CDS government, I suggest the following.

A citizen shall be any person who owns or rents land in CDS. [I had previously supported simple registration, but with a body politic so small (which means only those interested in voting), it can easily be swamped by evil one's registering a group of friends to influence policy or an election, if the following is approved.]

Each citizen should have the right to vote for their representatives on a CDS council in regularly scheduled elections by secret ballot. The count of votes would be as present.

These representatives should have the power to determine by council majority vote the mayor of the city, who would serve as its executive at the discretion of the council (which means the council can fire him).

These representatives, and the mayor with council approval, shall have the power to set up whatever agencies necessary and for the governance of the city, and how their personnel will be determined.

The citizens should have the power to recall representatives for any reason. (I disagree that this would be a source of instability. Rather, I believe it would mean a more responsible and citizen sensitive council.)

The citizen should have the power to propose and vote on initiatives concerning the governance of CDS. (Yes, this smacks of pure democracy, but CDS has only 49 citizens, much fewer than many societies and groups that operate as pure democracies. I don't think the criticism of pure democracy applicable to governing a city of, say, one million, is appropriate for 49 citizens, most of whom are among the politically active and know each other.)[/quote:17wcng2k]

Incidentally, although there is no reason to abolish our present, CDS-wide institutions, and adopt this model instead, this model might be very useful for the [i:17wcng2k]local[/i:17wcng2k] governments that I propose (whose powers would be defined by the region's charter, and delegated from the existing authority of the Chancellor).

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

Re: The Best Checks and Balances System

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

[quote="Rudy Ruml":2344zald]You see, for 49 people the changes I suggest would give you the best checks and balances government. It would be DIRECTLY checked and balanced by the votes of its 49 citizens for their representatives, their ability to recall representatives, AND as Aliasi points out so nicely, their feet and wallets. You can do no better democratically than this.[/quote:2344zald]
Now that's where you lose my support Rudy. I don't think that the ability to recall representatives and the ability to walk away, per se, deliver the kinds of checks and balances we need as we develop our virtual world government. How would you prevent fraud, the mistreatment of minorities, financial irregularity and indiscipline under your system?

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

Re: The Best Checks and Balances System

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":19l5453e]Now that's where you lose my support Rudy. I don't think that the ability to recall representatives and the ability to walk away, per se, deliver the kinds of checks and balances we need as we develop our virtual world government. How would you prevent fraud, the mistreatment of minorities, financial irregularity and indiscipline under your system?[/quote:19l5453e]

A good point indeed. One of the reasons that Rudy's system may be suitable for local, but not national, government is that because, with a local government by delegated powers, the checks and balances can come from the national government.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”