[quote="Tad Peckham":21yuxci1]i am not suggesting they would be dire, i am suggesting it COULD be dire. there is a huge difference.[/quote:21yuxci1]
Are you suggesting that there is a significant liklihood of them being dire? If so, upon what basis? If not, why should an insignificant liklihood affect what we do?
[quote:21yuxci1]i prefaced my analogy as being 'worst case', it would be nice if you would respect that analogy for what it is: worst case.[/quote:21yuxci1]
Worst case of what, precisely? You certainly did not so qualify your analogy when you wrote of it, and you still have not answered my question as to how in the least like the native American peoples that the inhabitants of SecondLife are. Why have you not answered that?
[quote:21yuxci1]it was the first analogy that came to my mind, so i used it. what i was trying to suggest was that if the us government had allowed native tribes to join our nation but retain their cultural traditions, laws, and land, then maybe many of the events that shame our history could have been avoided.[/quote:21yuxci1]
This is entirely speculative and has no sound basis in evidence or reason. The problem was that the colonists in the US took over by force land belonging to the native Americans, and then when the native Americans decided that they did not like the idea of living in the colonialists' reservations, tried to exterminate them. How is that even close to trying to expand a virtual nation by inviting people to join it if they want? The anology that you draw has no relevance whatsoever to our present position.
[quote:21yuxci1] maybe we could have learned a thing or two from natives instead of forcing our set of rules upon them.[/quote:21yuxci1]
I am not suggesting that anything is forced upon anybody, so, again, the anology wholly fails.
[quote:21yuxci1]once again, i understand that prospective cds members are given a CHOICE to adapt to our laws, or not to join the cds. however, i will try once again to tell you why i don't really think that is offering people much of a choice.[/quote:21yuxci1]
As I have explained repeatedly, it is offering far [i:21yuxci1]more[/i:21yuxci1] of a choice than if we did not exist at all. Indeed, you are suggesting that people [i:21yuxci1]not[/i:21yuxci1] have the choice of joining a large, strong, unitary state with local government by delegated powers: your proposal gives people no more options than does the status quo. Why, then, do you claim that it is preferable?
[quote:21yuxci1][quote:21yuxci1]I notice that you have pointedly failed to answer my question about what is different about people joining us by putting mainland land under our control compared with just renting land in Neufreistadt or Colonia Nova. Is that not the crux of the issue?[/quote:21yuxci1]
i notice that you have pointedly failed to address my concerns over racial, religious, economic and political diversity amongst different sets of peoples and simulators. moreover, i pointedly told you that i am not against mainland expansion.[/quote:21yuxci1]
That is a non-answer. What Gxeremio proposes is that the government of what is now the CDS be for ever confined to Neufreistadt (and possibly also Colonia Nova), and that we should expand by, [i:21yuxci1]and only by[/i:21yuxci1], creating an intergovernmental organisation, and inviting groups first to become nations, and then join that intergovernmental organisation. Gxeremio's proposal is that the CDS as it is now, with our present government, should not be the government of anything other than Neufreistadt. That would mean that the only way of putting oneself under the jurisdiction of the government as it is now would be to rent land in Neufreistadt. No reason has evern been advanced, however, as to what possible adverse consequences could result from allowing people to bring themselves under the jurisdiction of our present government, not only by renting land in Neufreistadt, but by enfranchulating on the mainland. No reason, therefore, has ever been advanced as to why Gxeremio's proposal should be adopted over our present model.
Furthermore, as to your point about population diversity, I have repeatedly asked, and have repeatedly received no answer whatsoever to, the question about what precise disadvantage that a system of local government by delegated powers from a unitary government has over the system that Gxeremio proposes. Why, exactly, does local government by delegated powers not fully address those issues?
[quote:21yuxci1]i think it is a forced conquest of ideology.[/quote:21yuxci1]
[i:21yuxci1]How[/i:21yuxci1]? Where is the [i:21yuxci1]force[/i:21yuxci1], exactly?
[quote:21yuxci1]once again, i understand that membership to the cds is voluntary. my concern is that each simulator has different needs and therefore different sets of laws for those simulators might be needed. when appropriate, universal laws can be enacted by the cds, but i think it silly for all cds simulators to live under neufreistadt law when neufreistadt law might not make sense for them.[/quote:21yuxci1]
You have not once, despite me having asked repeadtly, given any reason whatsoever as to why those differing needs could not be fully met by local government by delegated powers. Do you have any such reason? If so, what is it, and why have you not already given it? If not, how could you possibly honestly be of the view that it is insufficient?
[quote:21yuxci1]it is my impression that caledon has a democratic government, although i could be wrong here.[/quote:21yuxci1]
Caledon is most certainly not a democracy: just ask Desmond Shang, its king.
[quote:21yuxci1]to me it makes sense that any simulator wishing to join a democratic association such as the cds would already have an idea of what democracy should look like in their simulator.[/quote:21yuxci1]
Why do you assume that? What is the evidential foundation for that assertion, and the implied assertion that goes with it that the each and every group who joins will be willing and able to construct for itself a fully comprehensive system of state government to link with what Gxeremio proposes be no more than an intergovernmetnal organisation?
[quote:21yuxci1]if they do not have an idea for democracy, then i see nothing wrong with them adopting our constitution. i just don't think radification of our constitution should be compulsory for cds membership.[/quote:21yuxci1]
It is not a matter of an existing government [i:21yuxci1]ratifying[/i:21yuxci1] our constitution and joining a federation: it is a matter of a group of people, or set of individuals who make themselves into a loose group just in order to join us, effectively being [i:21yuxci1]immigrants[/i:21yuxci1] into our existing nation, and bringing their land with them.
And people are not "members" of the CDS: they are citizens. What else can citizenship concievably mean than a duty to be bound by our laws, in return for the benefit of living in a soceity in which everybody else is also bound by those laws?
[quote:21yuxci1]i think this the crux. people like gxeremio are asking others to look cds in a different way. [/quote:21yuxci1]
This wholly fails to address my point, which was:
[quote:21yuxci1]They already have that choice: they can either join the CDS, or create their own government. Then, maybe, one day, if and when there are lots of different democratic nations in SecondLife, we can create a new "Commonwealth of Virtual Nations" that does something similar to what Gxeremio wants our existing CDS to do. That is not a reason why our existing CDS, with its current government, should not seek itself to expand.[/quote:21yuxci1]
Blandly stating that people are "asking other sto look at the CDS in a different way" does not even [i:21yuxci1]attempt[/i:21yuxci1] to address the substance of the reasoning in the above, about there being no conceivable reason why the CDS [i:21yuxci1]as it is now[/i:21yuxci1] should not give people the opportunity to join it both by renting on the islands and enfranchulating on the mainland, and how the idea of a Commonwealth of Virtual Nations is no reason to abandon any plans for a single nation, the CDS, to expand as much as capacity and demand allows. Are you capable of addressing those points? If so, what is your response to them, and why have you not already stated it? If not, how can you possibly disagree with my position?
[quote:21yuxci1]but before they can become cds members, they have to accept our constitution as is. true, they will a vote once they are cds members, but that is only after they agreed to our sets of laws. it is not forced assimilation, but it is assimilation nonetheless.[/quote:21yuxci1]
So you now [i:21yuxci1]accept[/i:21yuxci1] that it is wholly incoherent to claim that we are forcing anything on people?
[quote:21yuxci1]to put it another way, you are asking prospective cds members to adopt a constitution based on majority rule.[/quote:21yuxci1]
We are offering people the opportunity to join a nation that is based on majoritarian representative democracy. We always have offered people that opportunity, right from when we were first founded. The only difference now is that we are offering a new way for people to become part of our nation: enfranchulation. How is that restricting, rather than increasing, people's choices?
[quote:21yuxci1]democratic representation doesn't start for these simulators until they have adopted the majority rule constitution, and i am opposed to that.[/quote:21yuxci1]
Upon what possible grounds, given what I have written above? How is the position any different when people join by renting land in Neufreistadt as opposed to when people join by enfranchulating a mainland parcel?
[quote:21yuxci1]great, i understand that. what i am saying is that you want all simulators joining the cds to adopt our constitution.[/quote:21yuxci1]
No, what I am saying is that what it inherently [i:21yuxci1]means[/i:21yuxci1] to join the CDS as a [i:21yuxci1]citizen[/i:21yuxci1] is to be bound by our laws. If people want their own government, they are free to create it. If people, once they have created their own government, then want to club together with other governments, then it might be time to consider making a Commonwealth of Virtual Nations.
[quote:21yuxci1]regardless of their willingness to do that or not, i disagree with that premise. i think the cds should be a commonwealth of nations where each person in those simulators can elect their own government, set their own constitution, and submit their own legislation to the cds based upon what is best for their society and the cds at-large.[/quote:21yuxci1]
This is merely endless repeition of your original claim, without having addressed all of the detailed and specific reasoning that I have given. That to which you responded above I wrote in response to your bizarre claim that we do not have universal sufferage in the CDS. Do you still stand by that claim now, or do you accept that you were wrong to claim that we do not have universal sufferage? If you still stand by the claim, upon what possible basis do you do so, and why do you not address that specific issue above?
[quote:21yuxci1]all i was suggesting that if the cds acted as a commonwealth, we could incorporate other forms of democracies, learn from them, and build a stronger system.[/quote:21yuxci1]
No, what you were suggesting was quite clearly that by offering people the chance to join our nation as it presently stands we were somehow forcing people to do something, or imposing something upon them. The specific passage to which I was responding was, [i:21yuxci1]"however, although the cds is a voluntary association, we are still telling those members to adopt our laws and live by them"[/i:21yuxci1]. Gxeremio's idea was to abandon entirely our present aim of expanding our existing nation by enfranchulation, and instead require anybody who wants to join us with a mainland parcel to create their own comprhensive state government first. That is quite absurd. Why should people on the mainland not have the option of joining a unitary state?
[quote:21yuxci1]compulsion exists in prospective simulators willingness to adopt our laws. no one is forcing them to do so you are correct, but as it stands now, it is compulsory for cds states to adopt our constitution, and once again, that is my problem. [/quote:21yuxci1]
As I have repeatedly stated, and you have repeatedly ignored, there is no [i:21yuxci1]compulsion[/i:21yuxci1]. Claiming that anybody is compelled to do anything in this context is equally as absurd as claiming that there is any degree of compulsion in me saying to you, "I will give you my car, but only if you pay me £1,000". Can you honestly say that I am compelling you to give me £1,000? If not, what, precisely, is the difference here? Why did you not respond to this exact (and extremely important) point when I made it above?
[quote:21yuxci1]yes i have given you reasons[/quote:21yuxci1]
Where are the [i:21yuxci1]specific[/i:21yuxci1] reasons for believing that there is some [i:21yuxci1]particular[/i:21yuxci1] thing wrong with [i:21yuxci1]specific[/i:21yuxci1] instances of our laws (those that apply to the whole CDS) that would make them wholly incompatible with any group that would be worthwhile having as a member of the CDS? You have provided no such reasons. If you think that you have, please reproduce them in response hereto.
[quote:21yuxci1]you have only attempted to find what you think to be holes in my postings and exploit those holes as being unintelligible.[/quote:21yuxci1]
This is an absurd form of argument: are you seriously attempting to claim that I am somehow doing something [i:21yuxci1]wrong[/i:21yuxci1] by disagreeing with you, and pointing out where your argument for a proposition with which I disagree is flawed? If so, what, precisely, do you claim is wrong with it? If not, what possible relevance could the above have?
I also notice that you have failed to answer many, many important questions that I have asked above, and failed to provide any reason for not answering those questions. Such questions include:
* Why do you think that people will regret joining our system any more than they will regret any particular choice that they make in inventing their own?
* f you cannot find any substantial difference in principle between people joining the CDS by renting land in Neufreistadt or Colonia Nova, and people joining the CDS by putting their mainland land under our control, what conceivable basis could you have for asserting that offering people the latter, but not the former, option would have catastrophic consequences?
* It is unintelligible: you were claiming that we would somehow forcing people to adopt our system of government, when it would be literally impossible for us to do so. How can that be intelligible?
* Universal sufferage" means the right of all to vote. We have that. How can you possibly argue otherwise?
* Why should people be denied the option of enfranchulating under the CDS in the way that has always been proposed up until now?
* What possible benefit could there be in assessing the ability of any particular model of government to work well by confining it indefinitely, as you propose, to one tiny geographical region, and not encouraging it to expand?
* Is that not, however, suggesting that there be only one overall model of government, the tiny state within a club-of-governments umbrella organisation? What if the idea of a large unitary state with delegated powers local government works better? You do not propose that that should even be attempted. Why?
* What exactly does a person desire when a person desires to be a part of the CDS, except to be governed by, and have the benefit of, our laws?
* What point is there in joining the CDS other than to have the benefit of our government and legal system?
* Why should we suddenly change our direction to be something vastly different, and greatly inferior, when we are just on the cusp of expanding very greatly indeed?
Do you have answers to the above questions? If not, how can you possibly sustain your position? If so, in respect of each question, what are they, and why have you not already given them?
