Some thoughts on civics.

Rudy Ruml · Post by **Rudy Ruml** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:47 pm

I will repeat my reasons for desiring a simplification in the governmnt of CDS, since you reject them by saying they do not meet your definition of reason. Now, why do you not agree with the following whatever you call them:

Whereas:

1."CDS is not even a small town (correction--village), but we have a government of this village that is over complex,

2. clumsy in operation,

3. confusing (at least to me),

4.and over weighty.

Therefore

5a. there is too much institutionalization of government (in CDS),

5b. and this INTERVENES between the 49 citizens and the policies they may desire or oppose." (Emphasis added).

If you say, which I suspect you will, that I give no reason for them to be accepted, then I must ask what is it about "over complex," "clumsy," "confusing," "over weighty," or "intervenes between" that you don't understand. I know that American English is a stepchild of the British version, but I do think we speak it close enough to communicate. ):

Publius Crabgrass · Post by **Publius Crabgrass** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:54 pm

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2sc98ien]
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:2sc98ien]

Linden Lab doesn't run a national government, it runs the world! It decrees when the sun rises and sets, as well as many other world governance powers!

Aliasi Stonebender · Post by **Aliasi Stonebender** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:28 pm

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1excttn8]
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:1excttn8]

This isn't a debate club, Ash, and you don't get to "win" because of cute technicalities of phrase. You know damn well what I mean; It's LL's world, we just get to rent bits of it.

[quote:1excttn8]
Why have you [i:1excttn8]deliberately[/i:1excttn8] 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:1excttn8]Why[/i:1excttn8] have you ignored my specific reasoning about the very real degree of coercion that we are able to exercise?[/quote:1excttn8]

Ash, you being wrong doesn't equal me being evasive, and there ain't [i:1excttn8]anything[/i:1excttn8] bland about me.

We have precisely one lever; the ability to make make being in the CDS, under our law, and obeying that law, the more attractive option to going elsewhere. We cannot imprison. We can forbid entrance, but we are but two sims in a world of several thousand of the things; even if we were large there will remain large swathes of desirable territory that is not us. We can fine, but this is only an option so long as paying the fine is somehow more preferable to simply leaving.

I do not debate your logic on your level because the very assumptions you base the argument on are flawed; they make the assumption that we have any ability to compel, when all we have is the ability to convince. I speak of LL as a 'national' government because they DO have the ability to compel on pain of 'death' in the form of banning, but you are correct that they do not meet many of the criteria for a government. I submit, then, they they are gods.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:30 am

[quote="Rudy Ruml":19onm5wc]I will repeat my reasons for desiring a simplification in the governmnt of CDS, since you reject them by saying they do not meet your definition of reason. Now, why do you not agree with the following whatever you call them:

Whereas:

1."CDS is not even a small town (correction--village), but we have a government of this village that is over complex,

2. clumsy in operation,

3. confusing (at least to me),

4.and over weighty.

Therefore

5a. there is too much institutionalization of government (in CDS),

5b. and this INTERVENES between the 49 citizens and the policies they may desire or oppose." (Emphasis added).

If you say, which I suspect you will, that I give no reason for them to be accepted, then I must ask what is it about "over complex," "clumsy," "confusing," "over weighty," or "intervenes between" that you don't understand. I know that American English is a stepchild of the British version, but I do think we speak it close enough to communicate. ):[/quote:19onm5wc]

My point was, and always has been, that you have failed to provide any reason in support of your contentions that the institutions intervene in undesirable ways between people and what they legitimately seek to acheive, or that the institutions or the complexity thereof are excess, in the sense that there is so much of them that particular adverse consequences flow from having them structured thus, or even what exactly you [i:19onm5wc]mean[/i:19onm5wc], in this particular context, by stating that our institutions are "clumsy": in what precise way does this "clumsiness" manifest itself, do you contend? What exactly does it [i:19onm5wc]mean[/i:19onm5wc] for institutions to be "over weighty"? What precisely is the adverse effect, in our situation, of it being over weighty? After all, your descriptions are mostly metaphors (one cannot, after all, weigh institutions, and institutions do not move about such as to be clumsy): what exactly are they metaphors [i:19onm5wc]for[/i:19onm5wc]?

It is uttlery bizarre that you are refusing, over and over again, to answer those questions, or to reveal why you are not answering those questions, or to state whether you are capable of answering those questions.

It is also manifestly bizarre that you have for the [i:19onm5wc][u:19onm5wc]third[/u:19onm5wc][/i:19onm5wc] time ignored the two questions that I asked you about why anybody should defer to you unquestioningly in your claim that there is something wrong with our present institutions, and for the [i:19onm5wc]second[/i:19onm5wc] time failed to explain why you have ignored them. What do you have to lose by answering them? I am finding your behaviour more and more bizzare and inexplcable: first you suggest that an entire democratic nation of a virtual world defer to you unquestioningly in your assertion that the system that we have had, and been carefully refining with a huge amount of effort for a total of two years is flawed and should be entirely discarded and replaced with your system, then you repeately fail even to attempt to engage in any kind of reasoning about it, and repeatedly refuse to answer two simple but important questions about why you are behaving in this way. What exactly are you trying to achieve by this behaviour?

The two questions again:

1. 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?

2. 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?

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:34 am

[quote="Publius Crabgrass":2vl30w2v]Linden Lab doesn't run a national government, it runs the world! It decrees when the sun rises and sets, as well as many other world governance powers![/quote:2vl30w2v]

Precisely. Aliasi's attempt, therefore, to show that the CDS is some local province of a wider nation fails. We are a single nation in a larger world.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:43 am

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":1d86o1b2]This isn't a debate club, Ash, and you don't get to "win" because of cute technicalities of phrase. You know damn well what I mean; It's LL's world, we just get to rent bits of it.[/quote:1d86o1b2]

The whole reason that I took issue with you at all is that you claimed that SecondLife was effectively a nation, and that we were effectively a province of that nation, and therefore that our government always has been a local, rather than a national, government. That is not a "cute technicality of phrase" when there is a very important debate in progress about the importance of having local governments under the CDS, and when much discussion in this thread is about whether our institutions should be strutured like those of a local government, under a greater national government, or those of a national government where there is no fully fledged government machine above it (even though there might be certain limited forces of compulsion above it such as, in our case, Linden Lab's ability to change the world, and, with real governments, other nations' ability to conquer the first in war).

[quote:1d86o1b2]Ash, you being wrong doesn't equal me being evasive, and there ain't [i:1d86o1b2]anything[/i:1d86o1b2] bland about me. [/quote:1d86o1b2]

The sense in which you were evasive is that you did not [i:1d86o1b2]address[/i:1d86o1b2] my reasoning, not that you disagreed with it.

[quote:1d86o1b2]We have precisely one lever; the ability to make make being in the CDS, under our law, and obeying that law, the more attractive option to going elsewhere.[/quote:1d86o1b2]

Having "one lever" is most decidedly not the same as having no capacity to compel at all. Provided that we can do something to people that they do not like, and that the people to whom we do it have no power to stop, then we have at least some power to compel, and therefore at least some sovereingty.

[quote:1d86o1b2]We cannot imprison. We can forbid entrance, but we are but two sims in a world of several thousand of the things; even if we were large there will remain large swathes of desirable territory that is not us. We can fine, but this is only an option so long as paying the fine is somehow more preferable to simply leaving.[/quote:1d86o1b2]

We can also take away people's land, for which the people paid, and in respect of which people might have significant sentimental or commercial attachment, and remove people from an environment (our sims) that they very much like visiting and to which they are very attached. Our powers of enforcement, although not as strong as those of nations of the first life, are most certainly more than merely trivial.

[quote:1d86o1b2]I do not debate your logic on your level because the very assumptions you base the argument on are flawed; they make the assumption that we have any ability to compel, when all we have is the ability to convince.[/quote:1d86o1b2]

What exactly do you mean by "compel" here? What is the ability to compel, do you contend, other than the ability to do something to somebody that he or she does not like, and he or she cannot stop?

[quote:1d86o1b2]I speak of LL as a 'national' government because they DO have the ability to compel on pain of 'death' in the form of banning, but you are correct that they do not meet many of the criteria for a government. I submit, then, they they are gods. [/quote:1d86o1b2]

We are agreed on that part - the creators of virtual worlds are often referred to as quasi-deities in academic literature. The point being, therefore, that SecondLife is the world, LindenLab its deities, and we are one of its nations - not a province of another nation.

Rudy Ruml · Post by **Rudy Ruml** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:42 am

Again, Ash responds to my request as to why he disagrees with my four whatever-he-calls-them (see my last post) for humbly suggesting a simpler government for CDS, by saying that I have failed to provide any REASON. I am leaving it to the citizen who has experienced the current CDS government as to whether my four whatever-he-calls-them are sufficient unto themselves, and whether my solution is adequate to resolve the problems citizen also might perceive.

Ash perceives this forum as that for academic or philosophical debate. I do not. It is a political forum to air and help resolve political and community problems. It is citizen directed. And it is the citizen I am speaking to, and not Ash.

One political question concerns what is the best democratic government for CDS, understanding all the issues this involves, such as checks and balances, minority protection, human rights, and the rule of law (yes Ash, I am on your side on this, always). This is a political question, and as such my argument is not what is rational, what is philosophically best, or even what at Oxford will win the debating points, but political. As such Ash, you are not in a court of law with me, but in the political arena. That is the difference between us.

Cheers, Ash, and lets get together and talk about other things.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:50 am

[quote="Rudy Ruml":20fzijmv]Again, Ash responds to my request as to why he disagrees with my four whatever-he-calls-them (see my last post) for humbly suggesting a simpler government for CDS, by saying that I have failed to provide any REASON. I am leaving it to the citizen who has experienced the current CDS government as to whether my four whatever-he-calls-them are sufficient unto themselves, and whether my solution is adequate to resolve the problems citizen also might perceive.

Ash perceives this forum as that for academic or philosophical debate. I do not. It is a political forum to air and help resolve political and community problems. It is citizen directed. And it is the citizen I am speaking to, and not Ash.

One political question concerns what is the best democratic government for CDS, understanding all the issues this involves, such as checks and balances, minority protection, human rights, and the rule of law (yes Ash, I am on your side on this, always). This is a political question, and as such my argument is not what is rational, what is philosophically best, or even what at Oxford will win the debating points, but political. As such Ash, you are not in a court of law with me, but in the political arena. That is the difference between us.

Cheers, Ash, and lets get together and talk about other things.[/quote:20fzijmv]

I find it very disturbing that you seek to suggest that there could conecievably be a difference between a "philosophical" and a "political" reason to do something. Philosophy is no more than understanding things in the abstract. Everything has abstract manifestations: philosophy therefore is about understanding everything better.

In any event, there is nothing specially philosophical about asking the very simple question of [i:20fzijmv]why[/i:20fzijmv] you think that our current government is "clumsy", "too heavy" and intervenes in undesirable ways between people and what they seek to acheive, or even what you [i:20fzijmv]mean[/i:20fzijmv] when you say that the government is "clumsy" or "excessively instituitonalised".

You are saying "This government that has been going for a while is clumsy and over-heavy, and we should rip up its entire constitution and start all over again" - are you [i:20fzijmv]seriously[/i:20fzijmv] suggesting that it is somehow unreasonable to ask you [i:20fzijmv]why[/i:20fzijmv] you think that our government is clumsy or over-heavy, and how you think that these things manifest themselves? If so, why? What on earth is unreasonable about that? If I was to say that your writings on or theory of the democratic peace was "clumsy" or "over-heavy" (or, conversely, "over-simplified" and "insufficiently neuanced"), and then refused to provide any elaboration on what I meant or why I claimed that, how would you react?

By claiming that this debate is "political" and not "academic" (as if there really is a meaningful divide between the two in any event), are you suggesting that people leave their intellect at home when considering questions of how to design institutions of state, and choose what to do based on whim or whatever seems popular with other people (who, in turn, decide on a whim)? Let me ask you in a straigtforward way: do you or do you not believe that people should use their intellect in designing and scrutinising the design of political institutions, practices and procedures?

As for when you wrote, "[i:20fzijmv]And it is the citizen I am speaking to, and not Ash,[/i:20fzijmv]" I may remind you that I am no less a citizen than anybody else.

Aliasi Stonebender · Post by **Aliasi Stonebender** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:01 am

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":mma9gi4r][
The whole reason that I took issue with you at all is that you claimed that SecondLife was effectively a nation, and that we were effectively a province of that nation, and therefore that our government always
We can also take away people's land, for which the people paid, and in respect of which people might have significant sentimental or commercial attachment, and remove people from an environment (our sims) that they very much like visiting and to which they are very attached. Our powers of enforcement, although not as strong as those of nations of the first life, are most certainly more than merely trivial. [/quote:mma9gi4r]

Those are pretty trivial to [i:mma9gi4r]me[/i:mma9gi4r], but then, I never risk more than I am willing to lose. I submit I am far from a unique case in this regard. The prospect of losing one's investment may have some effect, but having sensible law without needless trimmings that can be understood by any intelligent citizen is better yet.

[quote:mma9gi4r]
We are agreed on that part - the creators of virtual worlds are often referred to as quasi-deities in academic literature. The point being, therefore, that SecondLife is the world, LindenLab its deities, and we are one of its nations - not a province of another nation.[/quote:mma9gi4r]

*shrug* call it a rose or call it a petunia, it works out the same. There are lines we cannot cross, and LL enforces them, will we or no.

Tad Peckham · Post by **Tad Peckham** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:16 am

[quote:2gezjuk1]You are saying "This government that has been going for a while is clumsy and over-heavy, and we should rip up its entire constitution and start all over again" - are you [i:2gezjuk1]seriously[/i:2gezjuk1] suggesting that it is somehow unreasonable to ask you [i:2gezjuk1]why[/i:2gezjuk1] you think that our government is clumsy or over-heavy, and how you think that these things manifest themselves?[/quote:2gezjuk1]

i am certainly not in a position to speak for rudy, but from my point of view these questions were answered quite clearly. in my opinion, a government consisting of 23 people for a population of 49 people [i:2gezjuk1]is[/i:2gezjuk1] clumsy and heavy. when 23 people are sitting in positions of governmental power, how is that democratic? when half of the population occupies a chair within the government, how do citizens have a voice? if half the population of any alleged real-world democratic nation held government jobs that centered around policy making and/or implementation, no other true democratic nation would dare consider said country a democracy on the basis that half the balance of power is held within the government, with the majority of power not being extended to the people. in effect, the same thing is happening in nfs. we call ourselves a democracy, but in doing so, have placed all the power in the hands of the government. true, we as citizens do have the right to vote, but with 23 people in government positions, who holds the [i:2gezjuk1]true[/i:2gezjuk1] power here? the voters, or the government officials who have their own interests to consider? i think it is perfectly appropriate for anyone to ask the question why do we need 23 people to run a village the size of 49? i might also add, that not all of those 49 people are active citizens!

edit: to clarify, i was using the high-end estimate of '23' in this posting based on patroklus murakami's estimated 16-23 people needed to fill government postings.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:18 am

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":1h166gci]Those are pretty trivial to [i:1h166gci]me[/i:1h166gci], but then, I never risk more than I am willing to lose. I submit I am far from a unique case in this regard.[/quote:1h166gci]

Merely because you would not care if you were banished does not mean that that is true of everyone. Similarly, in real life, there are some people who do not mind very much going to prison: that does not mean that the government has no power whatsoever. If we have even a small amount of coercive power, then we are a nation.

[quote:1h166gci]The prospect of losing one's investment may have some effect, but having sensible law without needless trimmings that can be understood by any intelligent citizen is better yet.[/quote:1h166gci]

You write as if there was somehow a link between well-designed law and powers of enforcement. Law should both be well-designed and effectively enforced. Having one does not preclude the need for the other. I suspect that you might disagree with me about what constitutes good design of laws, however.

[quote:1h166gci]*shrug* call it a rose or call it a petunia, it works out the same. There are lines we cannot cross, and LL enforces them, will we or no.[/quote:1h166gci]

That may or may not be so, but none of that means that we are not a nation, as you had earlier suggested.

Rudy Ruml · Post by **Rudy Ruml** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:06 pm

Of course, you are a citizen of CDS Ash, a very important one in my eyes. I was speaking collectively about citizens, not meaning to exclude you.

I want to deal with a point you raise that may bother some citizens. That is people here have put in a lot, and I do mean lot, of time and effort to create the democratic system that CDS now enjoys. Much thought went into finely tuning it to institutionalize a balance of power, checks and balances, the protection of minorities, human rights, a secure economy (e.g., land ownership), and a legal process. Now, I come along and suggest throwing it all out for a different democratic model. Let's be frank: How dare I?

Ash treats this as negative, as may many others and this is one of his arguments against my humble suggestions. But, this is to misunderstand political development and growth. Aside from democracy being a method of nonviolence (re my seminar), it is also a medium of change. That is, each democratic institution, or all of them together (called a democratic system), is a human experiment in democratic governance. It is as though some Gods were testing out different ways of governing. In this view, the democratic system we have now is an experiment, and all those who have worked to hard to set it up have set up this experiment.

When you look at it this way, then the natural questions are about how well it worked, what have we learned, and then how can we change it.

This was and remains my view when I first came into SL and so happy to see this experiment in democracy. Now, I modestly suggest that it has problems, which are my four whatever-Ash-calls-them (see my posts above) that we should learn from this experiment. Now, I'm saying that we should make the appropriate adjustments in our institutions, and thus improve out democracy. I have no doubt that if my suggestions are carried out to the letter, that eventually this new experiment also will require changes. I see all this as iterative. Each democratic political system is an experimental step towards what best fits and values and interests of the citizens. This can never be final, for values and interests change, but the best way adjusting to these changes is democracy itself.

So, look on my suggestions as positive in this process, and those of you who put so much effort into what we have now, look at what you have done as contributing to this great experimental process, to democracy at its most basic. And, personally, and heart felt, I can't thank you enough for what you have done.

Cheers

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:32 pm

[quote="Tad Peckham":7o3ts49a]i am certainly not in a position to speak for rudy, but from my point of view these questions were answered quite clearly. in my opinion, a government consisting of 23 people for a population of 49 people [i:7o3ts49a]is[/i:7o3ts49a] clumsy and heavy. when 23 people are sitting in positions of governmental power, how is that democratic? when half of the population occupies a chair within the government, how do citizens half a voice? if half the population of any alleged real-world democratic nation held government jobs that centered around policy making and/or implementation, no other true democratic nation would dare consider said country a democracy on the basis that half the balance of power is held within the government, with the majority of power not being extended to the people. in effect, the same thing is happening in nfs. we call ourselves a democracy, but in doing so, have placed all the power in the hands of the government. true, we as citizens do have the right to vote, but with 23 people in government positions, who holds the [i:7o3ts49a]true[/i:7o3ts49a] power here? the voters, or the government officials who have their own interests to consider? i think it is perfectly appropriate for anyone to ask the question why do we need 23 people to run a village the size of 49? i might also add, that not all of those 49 people are active citizens!

edit: to clarify, i was using the high-end estimate of '23' in this posting based on patroklus murakami's estimated 16-23 people needed to fill government postings.[/quote:7o3ts49a]

Your point does not make any sense: do you say that having 23 out of 49 people in government posts gives citizens, overall, more or less power than having 23 out of 100 or 23 out of 1,000 people in government posts? If less, how, exactly? You mention above that, in the CDS, the government has all the power: but that is exactly what it [i:7o3ts49a]means[/i:7o3ts49a] for something to be a government at all: to have a monopoly of power. The relative number of people in the government compared to the citizens is wholly irrelevant to this point.

Finally, as I have pointed out before, for any government to work, there is a certain minimum number of institutions and people required, so, at very small sizes, a workable government is always going to be a sizable proportion of our population. As we expand, that proportion will decrease. The proportion alone, however, cannot be used as an accurate guide to whether our institutions are excess in number or not. To determine that, one must look at the functions that the institutions need to discharge, how many institutions are needed to discharge those functions, and then how many people are needed best to perform the functions of each individual institution. If that results in a large proportion of the population working for the government, then so be it.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:40 pm

[quote="Rudy Ruml":lt3koxc1]Of course, you are a citizen of CDS Ash, a very important one in my eyes. I was speaking collectively about citizens, not meaning to exclude you.

I want to deal with a point you raise that may bother some citizens. That is people here have put in a lot, and I do mean lot, of time and effort to create the democratic system that CDS now enjoys. Much thought went into finely tuning it to institutionalize a balance of power, checks and balances, the protection of minorities, human rights, a secure economy (e.g., land ownership), and a legal process. Now, I come along and suggest throwing it all out for a different democratic model. Let's be frank: How dare I?

Ash treats this as negative, as may many others and this is one of his arguments against my humble suggestions. But, this is to misunderstand political development and growth. Aside from democracy being a method of nonviolence (re my seminar), it is also a medium of change. That is, each democratic institution, or all of them together (called a democratic system), is a human experiment in democratic governance. It is as though some Gods were testing out different ways of governing. In this view, the democratic system we have now is an experiment, and all those who have worked to hard to set it up have set up this experiment.

When you look at it this way, then the natural questions are about how well it worked, what have we learned, and then how can we change it.

This was and remains my view when I first came into SL and so happy to see this experiment in democracy. Now, I modestly suggest that it has problems, which are my four whatever-Ash-calls-them (see my posts above) that we should learn from this experiment. Now, I'm saying that we should make the appropriate adjustments in our institutions, and thus improve out democracy. I have no doubt that if my suggestions are carried out to the letter, that eventually this new experiment also will require changes. I see all this as iterative. Each democratic political system is an experimental step towards what best fits and values and interests of the citizens. This can never be final, for values and interests change, but the best way adjusting to these changes is democracy itself.

So, look on my suggestions as positive in this process, and those of you who put so much effort into what we have now, look at what you have done as contributing to this great experimental process, to democracy at its most basic. And, personally, and heart felt, I can't thank you enough for what you have done.[/quote:lt3koxc1]

If indeed there was a strong reason to believe that our institutions caused real problems, then of course it would not matter how much work had gone into them if somebody had proposed a system that was genuinely better.

But that is not the position here. All that we have is you saying that there are problems, but refusing to explain why you think that there are problems, just like the example that I gave of the person who claimed that your writings about, or theory of, the Democratic Peace was "too simplistic" or "insufficiently neuanced", and then steadfastly refusing to explain [i:lt3koxc1]why[/i:lt3koxc1] he or she thought that, but nonetheless insisting that, for those reasons, it ought be rejected in favour of another theory entirely.

For my part, I do not see our present instiutions as clumsy, excess, or providing any unnecessary barrier between citizens and involvement in the process. You are saying the contrary. I am asking you why you are saying to the contrary. I ask again - is that an unreasonable request? If so, how is it unreasonable?

If there were genuinely strong reasons to believe that our system as it stood now caused serious problems, then, no matter how long anybody had worked on it, it ought be changed. But one person stating that the system is "clumsy", "excessively institutionalised" and intervening between people and what they legitimately seek in undesirable ways, and then steadfastly refusing to provide any explanation of [i:lt3koxc1]how[/i:lt3koxc1] the institutions are "clumsy", or [i:lt3koxc1]why[/i:lt3koxc1] he thinks that they so intervene, is not a strong reason: if it is any reason at all, it is a very weak one indeed, and a weak reason is certainly not sufficient cause to overturn something into which such a great amount of work has gone, and that seems to have served us well so far.

CDS Discussion

Some thoughts on civics.

):-)

Re: ):-)

Re: ):-)

Re: ):-)