Moderator: SC Moderators
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":28pej6al]
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.[/quote:28pej6al]
It was not my intention to turn this into a flamefest, but again I point out: [i:28pej6al]we already have a national government, and it is not us.[/i:28pej6al]
[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":1y7gzy1a]It was not my intention to turn this into a flamefest, but again I point out: [i:1y7gzy1a]we already have a national government, and it is not us.[/i:1y7gzy1a][/quote:1y7gzy1a]
Why do you think that Linden Lab can properly be described as a national government? What, precisely, do you think constitutes a nation such as to enable SecondLife to fit that description accurately? And do you seriously think that Linden Lab places any real political or judiciial checks and balances on self-governing communities? If so, how?
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":35itp2oa][
Why do you think that Linden Lab can properly be described as a national government? What, precisely, do you think constitutes a nation such as to enable SecondLife to fit that description accurately? And do you seriously think that Linden Lab places any real political or judiciial checks and balances on self-governing communities? If so, how?[/quote:35itp2oa]
[url=http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php:35itp2oa]Second Life Terms of Service[/url:35itp2oa]
[url=http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php:35itp2oa]Second Life Community Standards[/url:35itp2oa]
Those adequately answer your questions.
[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":36tsde6i][url=http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php:36tsde6i]Second Life Terms of Service[/url:36tsde6i]
[url=http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php:36tsde6i]Second Life Community Standards[/url:36tsde6i]
Those adequately answer your questions.[/quote:36tsde6i]
No they do not, because they do not provide an abstract definition of a [i:36tsde6i]government[/i:36tsde6i], and then explain how, precisely Linden Lab falls within that definition (not any organisation that exercises some power over some people can properly be called a "government": is Microsoft a government? Is the UN a government?), nor do they explain how, precisly, Linden Lab is supposed to exercise the political checks and balances necessary in the government of any self-governing community. The question specifically asked for an analytic response, and you knowingly failed to provide one. Why?
Pat asks how under the simplification of CDS government, I would prevent fraud, the mistreatment of minorities, financial irregularity and indiscipline under your system? I can't believe how mistrustful this is of what would amount to the conventional governance of a village, small society, or group. This is conceptual overreaching. If you among 49 members of a bowling, soccer, or tennis league that had a president, secretary, and treasurer, which comprise a governing council, would you be asking the same question? I don't think so. What then makes CDS special?
Is it the ownership/investment in land, and an economy? Then let me use any small village as an example (and keep in mind that a village of 49 people is also tiny). Outside of traditional cultures, in which there is usually just a headman, or chief, that governs, in the democracies a village usually has at most a small council, either elected or appointed by the head, chair, or mayor. For someone to stand up in such a council and say, "Fraud, the mistreatment of minorities, financial irregularity and indiscipline is not treated by our village government," would be a humor moment for all. I know this is only an indirect answer by analogy. But this analogy gets at the core problem of the question. It is not only inappropriate for a small village, society, or group, but laughingly so. I have no intention to belittle what is a very important question about government. And I think that Pat is a good and sensitive democrat in asking it. It just doesn't apply to 49 people.
You see, for a small village, such is prevented by the ability of citizens, who largely know each other, to elect or kick our of office their representatives AND RECALL THEM, (Actually, they may be beaten up, their families ostracized, tar and feathered, and run out of town). The incentives of those who are in power to be honest and true to the values of the tiny community, which is really your question, is that their reputation among friends and acquaintances is at stake, they may lose power (this is almost a parody where power is so relatively meaningless, and of little moment in CDS--does one mainly think of Aliasi or Gwyn as having "power" here, or more as friends? Does one act toward them as toward the powerful? Even to ask that question seems almost ridiculous.). And unlike a village, where people may be rooted by virtue of their ancestral burial plots, strong friendships, family connections, and all, in SL there are no such inhibitions against leaving CDS, except one's land. But one can still keep the land, rent it out, or sell it, and move to any of the attractive sims, as has one dissatisfied citizen recently.
Then there is Ash's response, which I expected for some reason. He says, " there is no reason to abolish our present, CDS-wide institutions, and adopt [his] model instead."
I gave you reasons Ash: "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." (Emphasis added). But, you want more. In answer to that, I pose my knowledge of government. AS Pat calculated for a response to my post, which you compliment him on: "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."
Awful metaphor alert: Assume that I live with a women for 50 years, about the period over which I've studied government, and say to the young women (in my eyes), "Will you finally marry me Baby." Also assume that her name is Ashcroftine, and she asks.
"But why, for what reasons do you want to marry me?"
I respond, "I love you. Sweetheart. I love your wrinkles, which remind of the beauty of the grand canyon, your white hair that resembles blowing straw in the wind, and your sexy cracked lips that invitingly scratch my own when I kiss you.
She arches her hairless eyebrow, is barely able to shake her head, and crackles, "But why? You are not giving me any REASON?"
"I love you."
"That is no reason. I want a reason."
Where upon, I answer in frustration, "Forget it. Let me help you back to your rocker."
Now, Ash, you are asking me why I know what I know which comes from a lifetime of living with this old lady called government. And I say, this is what I know, to repeat: "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."
Okay ASH, what is your REASON for opposing this? I'm sorry to say that some unfairly believe that it is because there might be no judgeship involved, no robe, no wig. I can't believe this, and know you are honest and well meaning, although misguided, in your questions, and if there is such a subversive motivation, it operates subconsciously in spite of your best intentions. I say to all, I don't want to hear anymore of this.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":17anwss6]
No they do not, because they do not provide an abstract definition of a [i:17anwss6]government[/i:17anwss6], and then explain how, precisely Linden Lab falls within that definition (not any organisation that exercises some power over some people can properly be called a "government": is Microsoft a government? Is the UN a government?), nor do they explain how, precisly, Linden Lab is supposed to exercise the political checks and balances necessary in the government of any self-governing community. The question specifically asked for an analytic response, and you knowingly failed to provide one. Why?[/quote:17anwss6]
Let me spell it out, then.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SOVEREIGNTY IN SECOND LIFE.
[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":qiw3fv2k]Let me spell it out, then.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SOVEREIGNTY IN SECOND LIFE.[/quote:qiw3fv2k]
Writing in capital letters does not make what you write any less of a non-answer. You have [i:qiw3fv2k]still[/i:qiw3fv2k] not attempted to provide an abstract definition of government - why not? Are you capable of providing one? If so, why not provide it? If not, how can you deign to make any claims about what is and is not a government at all? You have above entirely changed the topic - why are you trying to evade the original point?
As to the wholly new point that you raise above, what, precisely, counts as "sovereignty" for these purposes? Although Linden Lab could, in theory, do anything that it likes to anybody within SecondLife, it very rarely interferes with the way that things operates, and then only for clear breches of its Terms of Service and Community Standards (and not even always for those). Those terms and standards leave an extremely wide range of possible things that people can do. Our sovereingty lies in the fact that we can banish people from our land, and take away from them the land that they rent from us. That is not affected in any real, practical way by the fact that Linden Lab could, in theory, but almost certainly will not, in practice, interfere with that.
Ashcroft--A government is that sub-group of one or more people that establish the rules governing a group of which they are a part. The rules may or may not have a monopoly of force behind them, and the group may or may not be sovereign and independent. The UN is such a government of the international system (although it has no monopoly of force), as is the mayor and city council of Honolulu. And many gangs and terrorist groups have such a government, just as Bin Laden is the government of Al Quida. The central idea is that someone, or some sub-group, decides the rules for a whole group, i.e., governs it. And that is true of LL, which governs SL, and therefore is its governmentâ€â€a dictatorship in this case. And, in this case, LL monopolizes force, which is the ability to pull the plug.
[quote="Rudy Ruml":3ki0nhni]Then there is Ash's response, which I expected for some reason. He says, " there is no reason to abolish our present, CDS-wide institutions, and adopt [his] model instead."
I gave you reasons Ash: "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." (Emphasis added). [/quote:3ki0nhni]
I have already explained that those are not the reasons, but the things for which reasons are required.
[quote:3ki0nhni]But, you want more. In answer to that, I pose my knowledge of government. AS Pat calculated for a response to my post, which you compliment him on: "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."
Awful metaphor alert: Assume that I live with a women for 50 years, about the period over which I've studied government, and say to the young women (in my eyes), "Will you finally marry me Baby." Also assume that her name is Ashcroftine, and she asks.
"But why, for what reasons do you want to marry me?"
I respond, "I love you. Sweetheart. I love your wrinkles, which remind of the beauty of the grand canyon, your white hair that resembles blowing straw in the wind, and your sexy cracked lips that invitingly scratch my own when I kiss you.
She arches her hairless eyebrow, is barely able to shake her head, and crackles, "But why? You are not giving me any REASON?"
"I love you."
"That is no reason. I want a reason."
Where upon, I answer in frustration, "Forget it. Let me help you back to your rocker."[/quote:3ki0nhni]
This is an absurdly flawed metaphor. We all know what love is. There is no doubt that it is reason enough to marry anybody (provided that the conditions are also suitable - bigamy is forbidden, for example). Anybody who did not know that would, as you imply above, probably not be worth marrying in any event.
However, you cannot seriously suggest that stating, "[i:3ki0nhni]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.[/i:3ki0nhni]" is making exactly the same kind of statement as "I love you". With the latter statement, it would be virtually inconceivable that the person is mistaken: what the person is reporting, [i:3ki0nhni]the very thing that the person is making the statment [u:3ki0nhni]about[/u:3ki0nhni][/i:3ki0nhni], is a set of emotions in that person's mind, those emotions themselves being, in the case of proposing marriage, a genuinely good and sufficient reason to do so. With your statement, that is not true. You are making claims about things outside your own mind, about how effectively that individual citizens can make their opinions known in government, about how efficient that the process is. It is very possible that a person can be mistaken about that sort of thing. All that it involves is a miscalculation, attaching the incorrect weight to the importance of one or two factors, making an unjustified assumption about human behaviour, some error of abstraction, or one of the many similar errors that people can easily make when making conclsusions about what is, after all, a very complex thing indeed. That is vastly different from making a statement about one's own state of mind, that even a toddler can do with sufficient accuracy and authority that he or she is usually believed in such matters without further question.
[quote:3ki0nhni]Now, Ash, you are asking me why I know what I know which comes from a lifetime of living with this old lady called government. And I say, this is what I know, to repeat...[/quote:3ki0nhni]
Are you [i:3ki0nhni]seriously[/i:3ki0nhni] asking us to accept what you propose merely because you propose it? Do you really think that we ought defer to what you suggest unquestioningly? I must say, I find it extremely sad and disappointing that a professional academic should balk so much at the application of intellectual rigour, especially given the genuine intellectual rigour with which you approach your principal area of expertise, the democratic peace. I specifically asked you two questions above which you failed to answer, and failed to explain why you had not answered. I will repeat them because they are important: (1) [i:3ki0nhni]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? [/i:3ki0nhni] (2) [i:3ki0nhni]. 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?[/i:3ki0nhni]
[quote:3ki0nhni]Okay ASH, what is your REASON for opposing this? I'm sorry to say that some unfairly believe that it is because there might be no judgeship involved, no robe, no wig. I can't believe this, and know you are honest and well meaning, although misguided, in your questions, and if there is such a subversive motivation, it operates subconsciously in spite of your best intentions. I say to all, I don't want to hear anymore of this.[/quote:3ki0nhni]
As I have already stated, and you do not seem to have addressed, nor provided any reason for not addressing, that there is no reason to do something is reason enough not to do it.
Further than that, as you will have come to know, the constitution of what is now the CDS has been created by a great many people, who each have put a great deal of time and effort in to designing, drafting, negotiating and refining it over the course of two years in total. I myself have been involved in a very large amount of that work recently in relation to the judiciary, the benefits of which I have explained many times over elsewhere, and with which I am sure that you are familliar. You are seeking to sweep all that away for reasons upon which you refuse inexplicably to elaborate. If that is not a reason for opposing what you propose, then I do not know what is.
[quote="Rudy Ruml":nnfpjw4d]Ashcroft--A government is that sub-group of one or more people that establish the rules governing a group of which they are a part. The rules may or may not have a monopoly of force behind them, and the group may or may not be sovereign and independent. The UN is such a government of the international system (although it has no monopoly of force), as is the mayor and city council of Honolulu. And many gangs and terrorist groups have such a government, just as Bin Laden is the government of Al Quida. The central idea is that someone, or some sub-group, decides the rules for a whole group, i.e., governs it. And that is true of LL, which governs SL, and therefore is its governmentâ€â€a dictatorship in this case. And, in this case, LL monopolizes force, which is the ability to pull the plug.[/quote:nnfpjw4d]
That is a wider definition of government than I have ever known (that seems to me to be closer to the concept of mere organised authority), but, in any case, it was clear that Aliasi was referring to the government of a [i:nnfpjw4d]nation[/i:nnfpjw4d] when she wrote,
[quote:nnfpjw4d]we already have a national government, and it is not us,[/quote:nnfpjw4d]
which was that to which I was referring.
I will repeat my reasons: "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." (Emphasis added)."
You say that these are not reasons, but the things for which reasons are required. The reason you say this is because these reasons are not the reasons that you accept, but reasons are that which explain why a reasoning persons has the reasoned position that they have reason to believe is in good reason. Which is to say that…you are being unreasonable. I'm sorry to say this, for I know to you or any lawyer, it is like saying the you are naked.
That you have difficulty with my "love metaphor" is not surprising, given your whole approach to this question. To help clarify what I am saying, I have another awful metaphor (the one about being naked is not a metaphor, but an awful simile.). I know more about American legal practice than the British, so I'll stick to that.
Situation: An accused murderer on trial.
One piece of evidence: a stocking with blood spattered on it.
Prosecuting Attorney (PA): I wish to call Professor Rudy Ruml to the witness stand.
Hustle and bustle as Rum'l makes his way to the witness chair and is sworn in.
PA: You are a professor of forensics.
Ruml: Yes
PA: You have specialized in blood evidence?
Ruml: Yes, I have a Ph.D. in forensics specializing in the analysis of blood evidence, and have been teaching that for over 40 years.
PA: Is it true that your peers have well recognized your competence in this area with numerous awards?
Ruml: Yes, my peers are very perceptive.
PA: Thank you Professor Ruml. Now, previous experts have established that this dried liquid on the stocking is blood? Looking now at its spatter, what can you say about it?
Ruml: It is due to the victim being hit on the head by a blunt instrument at an angle. It is a typical splatter of such head injuries. That is to say it splattered from the victim to the stocking that you are showing the jury.
PA: How do you know this, Professor Ruml?
Ruml: By virtue of my lifetime study of blood spatters. They typically fall into this pattern from swiping head wounds with a hammer or axe, or some other weapon of that nature.
PA: Are there any quantitative tests that would establish this.
Ruml: No, there are not. This is strictly a qualitative question, and the determination of the source and nature of blood spatter depends on educated and experienced judgement.
PA: Thank you
The defense attorney (DA) approaches the chair to cross exam the witness.
DA: Mr. Ruml, you have only given your opinion on this splatter. What are your reasons for saying this?
PA standing up and facing the judge: I object your honor. I have already established that Professor Ruml is an internationally recognized expert in this area, that he was giving his professional judgement, and that this has to be based on an experienced, qualitative assessment.
Judge: Sustained.
Ashcroft, quit splitting hairs.
No, LL does not have check-and-balances and all that, any more than there are "check and balances" on me demanding a guest in my home leave when they act in a way I find displeasing.
Second Life is Linden Lab's ball, sky, sun, wind, rain, sand, and yes, their playground.
Your arguments are flawed because you presume we are a national government, able to exert and coerce citizens by force. We are not. We are a co-operative that uses the language of government as a metaphor, operating on a computer system owned by a third party, and under the very real laws of California and the United States of America.
[quote="Rudy Ruml":16os3jkr]I will repeat my reasons: "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." (Emphasis added)."
You say that these are not reasons, but the things for which reasons are required. The reason you say this is because these reasons are not the reasons that you accept, but reasons are that which explain why a reasoning persons has the reasoned position that they have reason to believe is in good reason. Which is to say that…you are being unreasonable. I'm sorry to say this, for I know to you or any lawyer, it is like saying the you are naked.[/quote:16os3jkr]
What I have asked you is perfectly simple - it is [i:16os3jkr]how[/i:16os3jkr] precisely, you contend, that our present institutions intervenes in undesirable ways between our citizens and the policies that they desire and oppose, and how, precisely, in respect of each of those ways, that it is undesirable. Furthermore, I have asked you, in respect of your claim that, "there is too much institutionalization of government", what precisely the excess is, and, in respect of each element of excess, how it is excess. Are you or are you not capable of answering those questions? If not, how can you honestly have reached the conclsusions that you claim to have reached at all, and why should anybody trust your ability to have done so? If so, what concievable reason could you have for refusing over such a long time to answer them?
[quote:16os3jkr]That you have difficulty with my "love metaphor" is not surprising, given your whole approach to this question.[/quote:16os3jkr]
The difficulty with your metaphor was that it was inherently flawed, as I explained above. Do you or do you not accept that it was flawed? If you do not accept that it was flawed, what, precisely, was wrong with my explanation of how, exactly it was flawed?
[quote:16os3jkr]To help clarify what I am saying, I have another awful metaphor (the one about being naked is not a metaphor, but an awful simile.). I know more about American legal practice than the British, so I'll stick to that.
Situation: An accused murderer on trial.
One piece of evidence: a stocking with blood spattered on it.
Prosecuting Attorney (PA): I wish to call Professor Rudy Ruml to the witness stand.
Hustle and bustle as Rum'l makes his way to the witness chair and is sworn in.
PA: You are a professor of forensics.
Ruml: Yes
PA: You have specialized in blood evidence?
Ruml: Yes, I have a Ph.D. in forensics specializing in the analysis of blood evidence, and have been teaching that for over 40 years.
PA: Is it true that your peers have well recognized your competence in this area with numerous awards?
Ruml: Yes, my peers are very perceptive.
PA: Thank you Professor Ruml. Now, previous experts have established that this dried liquid on the stocking is blood? Looking now at its spatter, what can you say about it?
Ruml: It is due to the victim being hit on the head by a blunt instrument at an angle. It is a typical splatter of such head injuries. That is to say it splattered from the victim to the stocking that you are showing the jury.
PA: How do you know this, Professor Ruml?
Ruml: By virtue of my lifetime study of blood spatters. They typically fall into this pattern from swiping head wounds with a hammer or axe, or some other weapon of that nature.
PA: Are there any quantitative tests that would establish this.
Ruml: No, there are not. This is strictly a qualitative question, and the determination of the source and nature of blood spatter depends on educated and experienced judgement.
PA: Thank you
The defense attorney (DA) approaches the chair to cross exam the witness.
DA: Mr. Ruml, you have only given your opinion on this splatter. What are your reasons for saying this?
PA standing up and facing the judge: I object your honor. I have already established that Professor Ruml is an internationally recognized expert in this area, that he was giving his professional judgement, and that this has to be based on an experienced, qualitative assessment.
Judge: Sustained.[/quote:16os3jkr]
If that really is American legal practice, I am very glad that I practise in England. In England, defence consel would certainly be at liberty to cross-examine the expert at length about the basis for his opinion: that, indeed, is standard practice where expert evidence is disputed. The [i:16os3jkr]reasoning[/i:16os3jkr] can be, and often is, challenged. That is precisely what I am doing in your case.
But you have failed [i:16os3jkr]again[/i:16os3jkr] to answer the two important questions that I repeated in my last post, and failed to give any sort of explanation as to [i:16os3jkr]why[/i:16os3jkr] you have not answered them.
I am afraid that it looks increasingly as if you have something to hide. What possible honest reason could you have for not answering the two questions below?
1. [i:16os3jkr] 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? [/i:16os3jkr]
2. [i:16os3jkr] 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?[/i:16os3jkr]
Incidentally, Rudy, were you aware that, for some years now, expert witnesses have not been allowed to testify in US courts unless they can show that their area of expertise and methods are backed by a thorough peer-review in scientific journals, precisely to ensure that the [i:1vvzechz]basis[/i:1vvzechz] of any expert opinion is thoroughly tested?
[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":1os78o9u]No, LL does not have check-and-balances and all that, any more than there are "check and balances" on me demanding a guest in my home leave when they act in a way I find displeasing.
Second Life is Linden Lab's ball, sky, sun, wind, rain, sand, and yes, their playground.[/quote:1os78o9u]
Then the point that you were trying to make, that we were somehow a province of some national government run by Linden Lab, fails. Linden Lab does not run a national government.
[quote:1os78o9u]Your arguments are flawed because you presume we are a national government, able to exert and coerce citizens by force. We are not. We are a co-operative that uses the language of government as a metaphor, operating on a computer system owned by a third party, and under the very real laws of California and the United States of America.[/quote:1os78o9u]
Why have you [i:1os78o9u]deliberately[/i:1os78o9u] failed to address my reasoning on this exact point? I specifically stated precisely how we are able to exercise some non-trivial element of coercion, and you quite purposely ignored that, and merely blandly repeated your original assertion that we are not. You are just being deliberately evasive. [i:1os78o9u]Why[/i:1os78o9u] have you ignored my specific reasoning about the very real degree of coercion that we are able to exercise?