[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":3kmxbeyv]This doesn't abolish anything. The constitution of Nstadt remains the constitution of Nstadt.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
The constitution as it stands is not [i:3kmxbeyv]just[/i:3kmxbeyv] the constitution of Neufreistadt. The government of Neufreistadt recently purchased Colonia Nova. The constution is the constitution by which Colonia Nova is governed, too. The Judiciary Act amends the name of the constitution to "The Constitution of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators" and replaces all the references to "Neufreistadt" with references to "The Confederation of Democratic Simulators". What you proopse, therefore, would reverse the present position.
[quote:3kmxbeyv]This proposal creates a minimalist structure on which a multi-sim government can be built.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
First of all, as stated above, it is well below what would suffice for even a minimal structure. It is little more than a set of vague aspirations.
Secondly, why do you think that it is good to have a merely minimal structure?
[quote:3kmxbeyv] I see this whole thing as akin to states in the US, or more rightly countries in the EU.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
The EU was formed as a club of pre-existing nation states, and that fact has been the most important factor in shaping how the EU has evolved. Every single nation state in the EU has existed for many times longer than the EU itself (in some cases, over a hundred times longer in some form or another), and already had in place highly developed national legal and political structures that would have been absurd (and politically impossible) to sweep away, and start again with an EU (then EEC)-wide single legal and political system. Even the states of the US were well-established entities, with their own well-developed political and legal structures, when the USA was formed, although they were all far younger than the EU, which is no doubt why they were happier with a federal structure, rather than merely a club of nations structure as adopted by the EU.
Our situation is vastly different. We are a tiny emergant nation in a world in which there is as yet hardly any government. We plan to expand, and, in expanding, bring our vision of a civil and ordered virtual soceity to parts of SecondLife that have not previously had government at all. We are not agglomorating existing governments, as the EU/EC/EEC and US did when they were founded, but starting afresh, and bringing land under governmental control that was not previously governed in any real way at all. There are no existing structures to preserve. It makes far more sense, therefore, that all areas that come under our control do not have to become a state, set up their own fully-functioning government and legal systems, and only [i:3kmxbeyv]then[/i:3kmxbeyv] apply to join a club of nations, but put their land under the control of our existing, unitary government, and, at the same time, negotiate and agree on what central government powers should be delegated to the local government, and what the structure of that local government should be.
Why do you think that SecondLife needs a club of nations when it has only have three entities that could be described as nations (us, Caledon and Port Neualtenburg), and two of those will almost certainly not want to join any such club?
[quote:3kmxbeyv]Each state/country maintains its own autonomy in important ways (when to vote, choosing local leaders, qualifications for citizenship that may be above and beyond CDS requirements, provision of additional rights/privileges above and beyond CDS privileges, etc.) while allowing the new super-government (by super I mean above) to regulate contracts, arbitrate disputes, set rules as needed, and collect and share information.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
You still have not answered my question that I posted above about what having lots of truly independent nations that all voluntarily join (and only voluntarily stay in) a club of nations like the EU will achieve in this regard that having a unitary nation that delegates some of its powers to local governments will not. Why have you not answered it?
As I have already stated a number of times now, a central unitary government that delegates some of its powers to local governments could enable local governments to:
* have their own budget (including local taxation);
* have elections for their own local representatives from only the local population, as well as have the local population take part in national elections (along with everybody else);
* set restrictions on who may join that particular locality, which do not apply to other parts of the CDS (such as a requirement that people who join an Esperanto region speak or be seriously interested in learning to speak Esperanto);
* create local bylaws regulating behaviour in the locality (such as a requirement, in an Esperanto region, that people always speak in Esperanto except in certain defined circumstances);
* provide local services to local citizens;
* set he local theme(s); and
* institute and enforce local planning law and policy.
What more than this, exactly, do you want, and why?
[quote:3kmxbeyv]Again, the structure already created is not affected by this proposal.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
As explained above, the structure already created [i:3kmxbeyv]is[/i:3kmxbeyv] the structure of the CDS, not just of one of the geographical regions governed thereby.
[quote:3kmxbeyv] It continues to govern as much territory as it ever has, perhaps even more depending how Colonia Nova is organized. This proposal makes it possible for the CDS to function as a super-government, and for other sims which might wish to organize democratically and join, it gives more of an even footing and a sense of being partners rather than serfs.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
Upon what possible basis do you contend that anybody in the CDS is or will be treated like a serf under a model of unitary government? That is a wholly bizarre and absurd assertion.
[quote:3kmxbeyv]The purpose of the CDS is to allow enforceable contracts, to provide help (work for the common good) of the citizens, and all the other purposes mentioned in the Preamble.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
The purposes of the CDS are the same as those of any nation. Incidentally, you might note that your analogy is not accurate: the EU, and even, to some extent, the US, has a different legal system, and different rules of contract, in each state. That is because, and only because, those systems and rules existed and had developed before those pre-existing nations banded together to form a club of nations, in the case of the EU, or a federation, in the case of the US.
[quote:3kmxbeyv]I don't need to go over each point of the current Constitution, because my argument is not to destroy it. I will say that the current Constitution of Nstadt doesn't and probably can't provide for rules for member states, nor for at-large citizens, nor for the collection and dissemination of bonding information on citizens, which this new Constitution calls for.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
You have failed to address the point, which was why, exactly, you claim that the current constitution is not suitable for being the constitution of the wider CDS. What, precisely, about each individual part of it makes that individual part unsuited for the task of being the constitution of the wider CDS?
[quote:3kmxbeyv]Again, to use my original comparison, this is like saying that since Virginia already had a state Constitution it should have become the Constitution of the US, or that the UK's Constitution should have become that of the EU.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
That is not a valid comparison, since, when the US was created, there was not only the constitution of Virginia, but of all the other states as well, each of which had existed for about as long as, and were as well-developed as, each other. That is not the case here. There is one relatively well-developed government, and the rest of the grid has no government at all. It makes far more sense to extend the existing government (whilst providing for some local government by delegation) than making a club of governments, and hoping that other governments will form themselves just to join the club. That does not seem very likely given how few governments have emerged from scratch in the three years that SecondLife has been operating.
[quote:3kmxbeyv]The Legislature in my proposal has the authority to do what needs to be done, and my hope would be that the examples worked out in Nstadt would be heavily considered. However, take a look at the list of laws on the city wiki. How many of those are appropriate for, or apply to, every potential member government of the CDS?[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
The only legislation that is not appropriate is the planning legislation, and that has [i:3kmxbeyv]already[/i:3kmxbeyv] been made applicable only to Neufreistadt, with separate rules for Colonia Nova. But the point that you take does not in any event make any sense: so far, the CDS has included just Neufreistadt. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that its legislature has been making a goodly number of laws that are relevant just to Neufreistadt.
[quote:3kmxbeyv]As to the government setup of new member governments (not franchulates in my nomenclature), some may choose to have the same or similar structures to Nstadt, others may try innovative or experimental democratic forms. In the long run, this strengthens democracy in virtual worlds while allowing for the CDS to meet its potential in avoiding and arbitrating disputes and enforcing contracts.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
Why do you think that a large number of different, contradictory structures, each of which has to be re-invented from scratch every time that a small group of people wants to join us is a good, rather than a bad, thing? Why have you not addressed the point that I made above about it being grotesquely wasteful, and a huge discouragement to those who wish to join us, to require each and every little group that wants to enfranchulate with us to have to create its own comprehensive state government and legal system from scratch?
[quote:3kmxbeyv]The CDS is, in fact, nothing right now. It is one and half sims.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
That is a contradiction: either we are nothing, or we are a government of one and a half sims.
[quote:3kmxbeyv]This is absolutely the appropriate time to have this discussion. My proposal creates a meaningful union of democratically-governed sims and individuals who wish to be subject to its laws (for the assurances of customers or out of personal interest in democracy), and would appeal to a broader group than we currently do.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
As I ask above, what, precisely, do you think that this acheives that a unitary government that delegates powers to local governments does not?
[quote:3kmxbeyv]Why allow Nstadt autonomy to develop in its own way while being part of CDS? To assume that our experiment with one small group of people over a period of a few years is now tried and true and ready to be the government of potentially thousands of people is misguided.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
Why? Why do you think that a system that has been developed carefully by many people over many months is not superior to a whole slew of systems that have not?
[quote:3kmxbeyv] The more experiment and innovation we allow, the more democracy can take hold in virtual worlds like SL.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
What precisely is the basis for your claim that limiting the governmental structure that we already have from expanding by enfranchulation will enable more, rather than less, democracy to take hold? You claim that experimention is improved by diversity, and yet you seek to restrict, quite without good cause, one particular permutation, that is the CDS, with its present constitution, expanding by enfranchulation as fast as demand and capacity will allow. By seeking to restrict the operation of our present constitution to one or two sims, you are restricting, not enlarging, the scope of our experiment. Other people are, and always have been, free to set up rival governments, experimenting with quite different structures, but very few ever have done (Caledon and Port Neualtenburg being perhaps the only true examples that are not role-playing sims, such as the Goreans). Why do you think that creating a club of nations for other pre-existing nations to join will mean that there will be more people creating nations than there already are?
[quote:3kmxbeyv]The more CDS can encourage member governments and help provide for the common good, the more it will encourage people in democratic experimentation. This also explains why it is beneficial to disentangle the CDS from Nstadt as much as possible.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
You seem to think that our aim is to help other people create other governments. It is not. Our aim is to propogate, and by propogating, test our own, existing structure of government, and how it copes with an ever expanding, and ever more diverse population. Your premises are contradictory: you claim at once that it is good to encourage experimentation, yet you seek to limit the existing experiment of our government by claiming that our existing government ought not expand, but stay forever the government of, and only of, a single little island sim called Neufreistadt. Why?
[quote:3kmxbeyv]Why establish a broader path to citizenship? To extend the benefits of enforceable contracts and democratic government to as many people as possible.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
What you are suggesting is a far narrower, not a broader path to citizenship: your model does, and our existing model does not, require anybody who wants to become a citizen of a new area, rather than merely buying land in our existing sims, get together and create a whole state-level government from scratch. The enfranchulation model requires only that people join our existing government with their land, and, if they want to, negotiate a small and simple local government structure whose powers are delegated from central government.
[quote:3kmxbeyv]In conclusion, we have all affirmed the value of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The CDS as proposed in this Constitution allows more people to have and defend those rights within SL. At minimum, it deserves serious consideration if not enthusiastic support.[/quote:3kmxbeyv]
You have not explained how what you propose could possibly increase the number of citizens compared to the existing model, which is the expansion of the present CDS government to greater territory. Indeed, forcing all new entrants to create their own, fully-functioning state government from scratch before they join is likely to be a very significant barrier to entry indeed.
