Please take a moment to vote for one of the options in the poll. Further information on each option can be found on various posts around the forum. I hope I have fairly characterized the three current positions I am aware of.
This straw poll is intended to see where informed people generally stand and is not binding. For example, I could support the first option generally but want to change the Nstadt Constitution in some ways, or support the second option generally but want to improve it before implementing it, and so on.
I should add a clarification to option 2 - the Nstadt Constitution would continue to govern Nstadt specifically, while the CDS constitution would govern the relations of member governments amongst one another. This is analagous to how the constitution of my state (Virginia) is in effect while also being part of the United States, which is itself subject to international laws.
Straw poll - please vote
Moderator: SC Moderators
-
- Veteran debater
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm
Straw poll - please vote
- Ashcroft Burnham
- Forum Wizard
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Your poll is flawed because the first question, "[i:1nfw3lef]The Nstadt Constitution should be the CDS Constitution, and all rules of Nstadt should apply to all parts of the CDS[/i:1nfw3lef]" makes two false assumptions: (1) that the constiution that we have is not [i:1nfw3lef]already[/i:1nfw3lef] the constitution of the CDS (in fact, it is); and (2) that the existing constitution requires all the rules that apply to Neufreistadt to apply to everywhere. In fact, there are [i:1nfw3lef]already[/i:1nfw3lef] rules (on zoning) that apply only to Neufreistadt, and not Colonia Nova, and with local government by delegated powers as I suggest, far more of that sort of thing will be possible. For that reason, I have answered "other", since the true position is not reflected by any of your four questions.
Incidentally, people who are responding to this poll should provide reasons: after all, the mere number of people who agree with something does not have any bearing on whether it really is right: that is [i:1nfw3lef][url=http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/E ... m:1nfw3lef]argumentum ad populam[/url:1nfw3lef][/i:1nfw3lef].
Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
-
- Veteran debater
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3bw1f4qz]Incidentally, people who are responding to this poll should provide reasons: after all, the mere number of people who agree with something does not have any bearing on whether it really is right: that is [i:3bw1f4qz][url=http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/E ... m:3bw1f4qz]argumentum ad populam[/url:3bw1f4qz][/i:3bw1f4qz].[/quote:3bw1f4qz]
Ah, but it does have bearing on whether or not it becomes the law of a democratic community. The mere volume and persistence of a person who says something also does not have bearing on whether it is really right: that is [i:3bw1f4qz][url=http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets ... g:3bw1f4qz]argumentum ad jerkiam[/url:3bw1f4qz][/i:3bw1f4qz].
By the way, I'm remembering why I don't like to use the forums rather than face to face conversation inworld.
- Ashcroft Burnham
- Forum Wizard
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":385tizkx]Ah, but it does have bearing on whether or not it becomes the law of a democratic community.[/quote:385tizkx]
One would very much hope that people who voted or proposed legislation in a democratic community would thoroughly consider the arguments and counter-arguments before they did so, and only vote in favour of something, if, having carefully considered all the relevant points, they came to the conclusion that it was the option best supported by cogent reasoning.
[quote:385tizkx]The mere volume and persistence of a person who says something also does not have bearing on whether it is really right: that is [i:385tizkx][url=http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets ... g:385tizkx]ad jerkiam[/url:385tizkx][/i:385tizkx]. [/quote:385tizkx]
Are you seriously suggesting that I am trying to prevail with mere "volume and persisetence", rather than on the basis of the strength of the reasoned arguments that I make? Given that you have been wholly unable to answer many of the important questions that I pose, or answer many of the points that I raise, and given that I have gone to a great deal of trouble to make the points with care and precision, upon what conceivable ground could you do so?
[quote:385tizkx]By the way, I'm remembering why I don't like to use the forums rather than face to face conversation inworld.[/quote:385tizkx]
Because debates in-world are less formal, structured, and precise, and give more room to evade difficult questions?
Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
- Patroklus Murakami
- Forum Wizard
- Posts: 1929
- Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm
I'm not going to vote as the choices don't fit too well with my opinion (and my thoughts are still developing on this issue).
On the face of it, I'm attracted to the ideas that Gxeremeio is putting forward. I think it would be arrogant to assume that our system is the 'only' way that a community could self-organise in a democratic fashion within Second Life and I like the idea of 'letting a thousand blossoms bloom' so that we can see different communities experimenting with different forms of democracy. So a 'Commonwealth of Democatic Simulators' has its attractions.
What would Neufreistadt's place be within that? Well, we currently call the overarching government of Neufreistadt, Colonia Nova and the franchulates (whenever we get them) the 'Confederation of Democratic Simulators'. This has always been somewhat confusing (why 'confederation' given that we do not have a confederal form of government?) and would have to change if we go with Gs proposal. So we'd have to call ourselves something else (the 'Democratic Republic of Neufreistadt' perhaps?) in order to participate in this larger Commonwealth as a member state.
But here's where my concerns lie - there aren't any other democratic states in existence and the micronations that do exist show no signs of becoming democratic (in any realistic way) anytime soon. So I find it hard to justify putting too much intellectual effort into designing a broader framework for democratic sims to join [i:d5jk7uf6]before they even exist.[/i:d5jk7uf6]
Now you might come back and say that we ought to be ready for when the democratic hordes come knocking at our door... but surely they'll want to get a say in whatever UN, EU or Commonwealth-type body we establish? I like the idea Gxeremeio but I need better reasons than given so far to put any real effort into thinking about it and making it happen.
- Ashcroft Burnham
- Forum Wizard
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
[quote="Patroklus Murakami":38mpavy8]I'm not going to vote as the choices don't fit too well with my opinion (and my thoughts are still developing on this issue).
On the face of it, I'm attracted to the ideas that Gxeremeio is putting forward. I think it would be arrogant to assume that our system is the 'only' way that a community could self-organise in a democratic fashion within Second Life and I like the idea of 'letting a thousand blossoms bloom' so that we can see different communities experimenting with different forms of democracy. So a 'Commonwealth of Democatic Simulators' has its attractions.
What would Neufreistadt's place be within that? Well, we currently call the overarching government of Neufreistadt, Colonia Nova and the franchulates (whenever we get them) the 'Confederation of Democratic Simulators'. This has always been somewhat confusing (why 'confederation' given that we do not have a confederal form of government?) and would have to change if we go with Gs proposal. So we'd have to call ourselves something else (the 'Democratic Republic of Neufreistadt' perhaps?) in order to participate in this larger Commonwealth as a member state.
But here's where my concerns lie - there aren't any other democratic states in existence and the micronations that do exist show no signs of becoming democratic (in any realistic way) anytime soon. So I find it hard to justify putting too much intellectual effort into designing a broader framework for democratic sims to join [i:38mpavy8]before they even exist.[/i:38mpavy8]
Now you might come back and say that we ought to be ready for when the democratic hordes come knocking at our door... but surely they'll want to get a say in whatever UN, EU or Commonwealth-type body we establish? I like the idea Gxeremeio but I need better reasons than given so far to put any real effort into thinking about it and making it happen.[/quote:38mpavy8]
Perhaps the answer is that the CDS should remain as it was always envisaged as being - a unitary republic that has its own islands (Neufresitadt and Colonia Nova), and also chartered regions on the mainland (and possibly islands), otherwise known as "franchulates", which could have their own local government, the expansion of which we should very much encourage, and that, if and when there is demand for it (i.e., if and when there ever [i:38mpavy8]are[/i:38mpavy8] any democratic governments besides us), then we could think of working, [i:38mpavy8]together with the creators of those other democratic governments[/i:38mpavy8] on a "Commenwealth of Virtual Nations", which might have things such as reciprocal banishment arrangements, and pooling of certain resources.
What Gxeremio has proposed, however, is akin to a single nation making up its own UN, and then asking other people to form themselves into nations and join it, which is somewhat pointless.
[i:38mpavy8]Edit[/i:38mpavy8]: There is no reason to change our name from the "Confederation of Democratic Simulators". Doing so would be a PR disaster, since we already have some publicity (the SL Business Magazine article, for instance) that uses our current name, and we are already notorious for changing our name so often. In any event, the name "Democratic Republic of Neufreistadt" would be too geographically bound: why should the government of the whole nation have the name of one of its regions?
Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
-
- Veteran debater
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3mzrgdds]What Gxeremio has proposed, however, is akin to a single nation making up its own UN, and then asking other people to form themselves into nations and join it, which is somewhat pointless.
[i:3mzrgdds]Edit[/i:3mzrgdds]: There is no reason to change our name from the "Confederation of Democratic Simulators". Doing so would be a PR disaster, since we already have some publicity (the SL Business Magazine article, for instance) that uses our current name, and we are already notorious for changing our name so often. In any event, the name "Democratic Republic of Neufreistadt" would be too geographically bound: why should the government of the whole nation have the name of one of its regions?[/quote:3mzrgdds]
PR disaster? Based on your being quoted in an article in one publication?
/me looks confused.
One immediate benefit of my proposal is the ability to easily incorporate at-large citizens into the fold, without the need to buy land, but also without negatively impacting Nstadt in the ways that some have feared.
-
- Veteran debater
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm
Ask away, my good man!
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":17clju0t]Are you seriously suggesting that I am trying to prevail with mere "volume and persisetence", rather than on the basis of the strength of the reasoned arguments that I make? Given that you have been wholly unable to answer many of the important questions that I pose, or answer many of the points that I raise, and given that I have gone to a great deal of trouble to make the points with care and precision, upon what conceivable ground could you do so?[/quote:17clju0t]
Ash, I have honestly attempted to answer your questions point by point. If there are unanswered questions, or questions which you feel I have been dodging, please list them. And I challenge you to ask them without using the word "precisely."
I will attempt to point to my answers in previous posts or answer them directly and succinctly.
- Ashcroft Burnham
- Forum Wizard
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Re: Ask away, my good man!
[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":1x4vp6re][quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1x4vp6re]Are you seriously suggesting that I am trying to prevail with mere "volume and persisetence", rather than on the basis of the strength of the reasoned arguments that I make? Given that you have been wholly unable to answer many of the important questions that I pose, or answer many of the points that I raise, and given that I have gone to a great deal of trouble to make the points with care and precision, upon what conceivable ground could you do so?[/quote:1x4vp6re]
Ash, I have honestly attempted to answer your questions point by point. If there are unanswered questions, or questions which you feel I have been dodging, please list them.[/quote:1x4vp6re]
First of all, you have not answered the question above, "[i:1x4vp6re]Are you seriously suggesting that I am trying to prevail with mere "volume and persisetence", rather than on the basis of the strength of the reasoned arguments that I make?[/i:1x4vp6re]", and also the second question about upon what conceivable ground that you could do so.
In the substantive thread, the following important questions are unanswered:
* Why do you think that it is good to have a merely minimal structure?
* 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?
* 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:
[list:1x4vp6re]
* 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.
[/list:u:1x4vp6re]
What more than this, exactly, do you want, and why?
* 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?
* What, precisely, about each individual part of [our present constitution] makes that individual part unsuited for the task of being the constitution of the wider "CDS"?
* 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?
* 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?
* Why [would Esperantujo] not [want to be a member of the CDS as it presently stands], exactly? What precisely do you contend that the benefits are of what you propose over the present system?
* Why is it up to us to encourage the creation of other governments, rather than to spread our existing government?
* If people are just going to copy the existing structures [of our government], what possible advantage is it to them to do so, rather than merely join us as we stand now?
* What is wrong with strong and effective central government?
* What is the basis for [the] premise [that it is international, rather than national, law that the CDS seeks to propogate]?
* You also assume, without providing any reasons in support thereof, that there will be fewer regions that are democratically governed if the CDS as it is now spreads, rather than if the CDS is artificially confined to Neufreistadt, and your vague commonwealth encourages other nations to spring up and then join. What possible basis is there for that assumption?
* Why do you claim that I merely "cannot see" alternatives when I have engaged with you in this debate in quite a great deal of detail, explaining at some length why what you propose is flawed? There is a difference between rejecting something because one does not care to think about it, and rejecting something because, having thought about it, one has concluded that it ought be rejected. Upon what possible basis do you claim, given the detail into which I have gone in this post and the last, that my rejection is of the former, rather than the latter type?
[quote:1x4vp6re]And I challenge you to ask them without using the word "precisely." [/quote:1x4vp6re]
Why should I not discourage vague answers in advance?
Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
- Ashcroft Burnham
- Forum Wizard
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":1y7h6l4m]PR disaster? Based on your being quoted in an article in one publication?[/quote:1y7h6l4m]
Not [i:1y7h6l4m]just[/i:1y7h6l4m] on the article, which has, in fact, attracted a great deal of wider interest (especially since there has been some very lengthy discussion of it in some other SecondLife forums), but, also, as I stated above, the fact that we are [i:1y7h6l4m]already[/i:1y7h6l4m] known for changing our name too often. Changing our name now would largely nullify the PR effect from the article, since people would not be able to associate the new name with the organisation described in the article.
Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
-
- I need a hobby
- Posts: 730
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am
- Ashcroft Burnham
- Forum Wizard
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
[quote="Claude Desmoulins":1mzcsl1v]It would have been nice to know what sort of other the person who voted other had in mind.[/quote:1mzcsl1v]
I voted "other" because, even under our present plans, not all of the rules that will apply to Neufreistadt will apply elsewhere.
Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
-
- Veteran debater
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm
Re: Ask away, my good man!
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]
First of all, you have not answered the question above, "[i:2e5uud9i]Are you seriously suggesting that I am trying to prevail with mere "volume and persisetence", rather than on the basis of the strength of the reasoned arguments that I make?[/i:2e5uud9i]", and also the second question about upon what conceivable ground that you could do so.[/quote:2e5uud9i]
Yes, that is what I am suggesting. Your logic has been repeatedly questons by multiple sources, on multiple issues.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]
In the substantive thread, the following important questions are unanswered:
* Why do you think that it is good to have a merely minimal structure? [/quote:2e5uud9i]
Not merely minimal, but appropriately minimal. As others have pointed out, the system of Nstadt has developed over years, and is suited to its constituency. That is wonderful and to be celebrated. But are the principles of the "Scientific Council," "the Guild," and the as-yet untested "Chancellor" and "Judiciary Commission" really so wonderful and nuanced that they can't be simplified for other contexts? Fine, you might say, go make your own government. But then how could that promote enforceable contracts, and what would it say about democracy in virtual worlds? The structure I have proposed is a start, not the final product. It is taking what has been learned about democracy and virtual worlds and putting them into their simplest and shortest forms. The current Nstadt Constitution (if Fernando's version is correcct) has 2,871 words, not counting the Judiciary Act additions (note: there is already an article VII, so that needs to be changed) which adds at least another 3,500 words. That makes about 6,400 words in total. Wow! My proposal starts with 914 words.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* 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:2e5uud9i]
You like the term "club of nations," which I have never used to describe the CDS. The CDS as I have proposed it is an active and effective super-government, uniting democratic member governments and at-large citizens in many important areas. Under my proposal, Caledon and Port Neualtenburg would not be eligible to be part of the CDS as they are not democratically governed. However, my proposal has the effect of encouraging new member governments to form and try new things. If your question is, why have a CDS and not just a bunch of separate democratic governments, then I would answer by point you to the Preamble of my proposal.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* 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:
[list:2e5uud9i]
* 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.
[/list:u:2e5uud9i]
What more than this, exactly, do you want, and why? [/quote:2e5uud9i]
COULD, but doesn't. My proposal does. I also listed in a post today some of the rights reserved to localities in my proposal: "the ability to choose how reps to the national govt will be elected and when, the ability to set unique land fees and raise taxes locally, to choose the requirements for citizenship in the sim, and to create additional local laws and systems to carry them out (courts, executive, etc.)."
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* 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? [/quote:2e5uud9i]
My proposal is a unitary government, but not a monolithic government. What is a serf? Someone who "is bound to the land and owned by the feudal lord." Who owns the land in our two models? In yours, the CDS. In mine, the member governments or the individual at-large citizens.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i] * What, precisely, about each individual part of [our present constitution] makes that individual part unsuited for the task of being the constitution of the wider "CDS"?[/quote:2e5uud9i]
You used the word "precisely."
I don't need to go over each part of the Nstadt Constitution to prove it doesn't work for a wider CDS; that is not my point. My point is that my proposal creates a more flexible super-government, and would be more attractive to potential member governments or at-large citizens. You keep repeating in other posts that "The CDS government is the national government. It has never been the government of one part of a wider nation. Why do you repeatedly insist that that is what it is? The government of the CDS is no more a local government than the government of Monaco or the Isle of Man. " I agree. But what you need to realize is that until a few weeks ago, the Constitution of Nstadt was NEVER referred to as the Constitution of the CDS. That is why I call the city's constitution by the name it has had for a very long time - the Constitution of Nstadt.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* 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:2e5uud9i]
I have a proposal. It is not my intention that it be passed without amendment or discussion. My point, again, is that a national government like the CDS needs a Constitution suited to its needs. Simply renaming Nstadt's Constitution doesn't suddenly make it a tried and true national Constitution.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* 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:2e5uud9i]
As I have explained elsewhere, there would be new incentives to do so which never existed before, including the following:
A. A fraternal organization of democratic governments (perhaps adopting many featues of Nstadt or other member governments to save time in setting up)
B. The possibility of enforceable contracts with a group beyond its own citizenry
C. Taking part in a judiciary and government services which allows better division of labor and more professionalism
D. Having something to offer potential citizens that makes citizenship in their government more attractive and more meaningful.
Also, simply saying "Hey, we want to see democratic governments form and we're here to help" is itself a great encouragement to people who might have toyed with the thought but need encouragement.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* Why [would Esperantujo] not [want to be a member of the CDS as it presently stands], exactly? What precisely do you contend that the benefits are of what you propose over the present system? [/quote:2e5uud9i]
I will repeat what I have written before so it's easy to find the answer to this question:"the ability to choose how reps to the national govt will be elected and when, the ability to set unique land fees and raise taxes locally, to choose the requirements for citizenship in the sim, and to create additional local laws and systems to carry them out (courts, executive, etc.)."
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* Why is it up to us to encourage the creation of other governments, rather than to spread our existing government? [/quote:2e5uud9i]
Well, I suppose if you don't have an interest in experimenting with democracy, you don't have to do so. But I thought that was what you said you wanted to do from the first days you were in SL.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* If people are just going to copy the existing structures [of our government], what possible advantage is it to them to do so, rather than merely join us as we stand now? [/quote:2e5uud9i]
Maybe none. Maybe some will just enfranchulate with Nstadt. That's okay. But under my proposal, there is ALSO the possibility to innovate, to try new structures and arrangements (so long as they are judged democratic by the Executive and the Legislature). And there's the possibility to take the forms of Nstadt and make a government exactly like it, but with different people (read: personality conflicts), yet still be associated with Nstadt and other member governments in important ways.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* What is wrong with strong and effective central government? [/quote:2e5uud9i]
Nothing. I haven't said that anywhere. My proposal creates a strong and effective central government.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* What is the basis for [the] premise [that it is international, rather than national, law that the CDS seeks to propogate]? [/quote:2e5uud9i]
Well, even getting beyond the debate of whether the term nation can be used at all in the Second Life context, the use of these terms is meant to suggest creating structures which are useful and needed, while still keeping flexibility and innovation. And spreading the UDHR is a goal of Nstadt as well as the CDS in my proposal, which is an international rather than national law. But that's an aside.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* You also assume, without providing any reasons in support thereof, that there will be fewer regions that are democratically governed if the CDS as it is now spreads, rather than if the CDS is artificially confined to Neufreistadt, and your vague commonwealth encourages other nations to spring up and then join. What possible basis is there for that assumption? [/quote:2e5uud9i]
As I clarified in an earlier post, "The proposal I have submitted could surely be amended to allow multi-sim governments, if that would be desired. However, it would limit the number of representatives in the Legislature, unless the whole thing was moved to proportional representation. And that would be alright too. The point is not to restrict the growth of Nstadt, or sims that use the same constitution. The point is to open up the advantages of the CDS to other democratic sims (and thus encourage their formation) as well as to individuals (at-large citizens in my proposal)." And as I mentioned earlier, there would be new incentives to create democratic governments that haven't existed before.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2e5uud9i]* Why do you claim that I merely "cannot see" alternatives when I have engaged with you in this debate in quite a great deal of detail, explaining at some length why what you propose is flawed? There is a difference between rejecting something because one does not care to think about it, and rejecting something because, having thought about it, one has concluded that it ought be rejected. Upon what possible basis do you claim, given the detail into which I have gone in this post and the last, that my rejection is of the former, rather than the latter type? [/quote:2e5uud9i]
Because I have repeated and refined the same points to answer the same questions, again and again, yet you still call my proposal "vague," "disastrous," and "confusing."
I hope this satisfies this round of questions and encourages you that I'm not trying to dodge anything. I would encourage you to post a new list of questions, if you have any, in this same format so they can be answered point by point as here, and restrain your comments in other posts to comments and counterexamples, rather not questions, since it becomes harder and harder to make sure I have answered each of your questions given the speed at which these two threads are being posted to.
- Ashcroft Burnham
- Forum Wizard
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm
Re: Ask away, my good man!
[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":376o3x0y]Yes, that is what I am suggesting. Your logic has been repeatedly questons by multiple sources, on multiple issues.[/quote:376o3x0y]
How can this possibly entail that I am trying to prevail with [i:376o3x0y]volume[/i:376o3x0y] and [i:376o3x0y]persistance[/i:376o3x0y] rather than the cogency of that very logic, and about those very issues?
[quote:376o3x0y]Not merely minimal, but appropriately minimal. As others have pointed out, the system of Nstadt has developed over years, and is suited to its constituency. That is wonderful and to be celebrated. But are the principles of the "Scientific Council," "the Guild," and the as-yet untested "Chancellor" and "Judiciary Commission" really so wonderful and nuanced that they can't be simplified for other contexts?[/quote:376o3x0y]
Why, precisely, do you think that they ought be simplified? What, exactly, is wrong with them as they are? You seem to be suggesting that a less sophisticated government have a greater degree of power than a more sophisticated government - whyever do you suggest that?
[quote:376o3x0y]Fine, you might say, go make your own government. But then how could that promote enforceable contracts, and what would it say about democracy in virtual worlds?[/quote:376o3x0y]
[i:376o3x0y]Your[/i:376o3x0y] proposed system does not promote enforcable contracts, because it puts estate ownership at the local level, whilst leaving the national courts to make decisions about when people should be banished. Furthermore, we have already spent a great deal of time and effort setting up, at considerable length, a judiciary to enable, amongst other things, CDS-level contracts to be enforced. Your single paragraph on the judiciary is simply too vague and ill-defined to do anything of any use. Why do you persist in promoting something with so little substance?
[quote:376o3x0y]The structure I have proposed is a start, not the final product.[/quote:376o3x0y]
Why do you propose starting afresh rather than refining the CDS's existing constitution?
[quote:376o3x0y]It is taking what has been learned about democracy and virtual worlds and putting them into their simplest and shortest forms.[/quote:376o3x0y]
This is simply refusing to engage with the substance of the matter. You are merely baldly asserting, again and again, that this is the right level of simplicity, yet not stating exactly what it is about our present constitution that is not the correct level of simplicty, and, in each case, why. Simplicity for the sake of simplicity is as bad as complexity for the sake of complexity: a system should be designed to be just as simple or complex as it needs to be, and no more. Just making something simpler for the sake of it will not make it better.
[quote:376o3x0y]The current Nstadt Constitution (if Fernando's version is correcct) has 2,871 words, not counting the Judiciary Act additions (note: there is already an article VII, so that needs to be changed) which adds at least another 3,500 words. That makes about 6,400 words in total. Wow! My proposal starts with 914 words.[/quote:376o3x0y]
See above. The overall number of words in itself is utterly irrelevant: only the substance counts. Your model simply has insufficient substance. I ask you again and again and each time you fail to answer: what precisely is it about the constitution of the CDS as it is now do you think is so bad that it ought be confined for ever to being the constitution of only one little island sim, and that only a departure from it as radical as what you propose above is capable of fixing it as far as the wider CDS is concerned?
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":376o3x0y]You like the term "club of nations," which I have never used to describe the CDS.[/quote:376o3x0y]
You have likened it to the European Union, which is often described as a club of nations.
[quote:376o3x0y]The CDS as I have proposed it is an active and effective super-government, uniting democratic member governments and at-large citizens in many important areas. Under my proposal, Caledon and Port Neualtenburg would not be eligible to be part of the CDS as they are not democratically governed. However, my proposal has the effect of encouraging new member governments to form and try new things. If your question is, why have a CDS and not just a bunch of separate democratic governments, then I would answer by point you to the Preamble of my proposal.[/quote:376o3x0y]
Your proposal is inherently contradictory: you say at once that our present constitution is unsuitable for the wider CDS (and yet persistently refuse to explain precisely why), yet try to invent another government that would have seemingly the same powers as the CDS, just with a different (and far less well-refined and considered) means of exercising them, yet you claim that your constitution does, and the present constitution of the CDS does not, allow innovation in local government. What exactly about our present constitution prevents there being innovation in local government that is allowed by your constiution?
[quote:376o3x0y]COULD, but doesn't. My proposal does.[/quote:376o3x0y]
Look, perhaps we are getting off on entirely the wrong footing on this debate. You seem to think that your constitution is necessary for there to be local governments. As I have explained, and you acknowledged, it is not.
If your proposal is, in essence, a proposal [i:376o3x0y]for[/i:376o3x0y] local governments, why do you not back the idea of having local governments under our present constitution, rather than inventing an entirely new national constitution, and making our existing government a local government of it?
If what you want is local government, why propose a whole new constitution for the CDS, rather than just propose that the CDS, with its existing constitution, creates institutions of local government, as it is perfectly capable of doing? There is likely to be far more support for the proposal that the CDS, as it stands now, create local governments in the franchulates, rather than that the CDS, as it stands now, be relegated to the local government of Neufreistadt, and a whole new CDS be created along the lines that you have suggested. If local government is what you want, there are already detailed proposals of how to achieve local government consistent with our existing constitution. What is wrong with backing those?
[quote:376o3x0y]I also listed in a post today some of the rights reserved to localities in my proposal: "the ability to choose how reps to the national govt will be elected and when, the ability to set unique land fees and raise taxes locally, to choose the requirements for citizenship in the sim, and to create additional local laws and systems to carry them out (courts, executive, etc.)."[/quote:376o3x0y]
I address these on the other thread.
[quote:376o3x0y]My proposal is a unitary government, but not a monolithic government. What is a serf? Someone who "is bound to the land and owned by the feudal lord." Who owns the land in our two models? In yours, the CDS. In mine, the member governments or the individual at-large citizens.[/quote:376o3x0y]
In both models, the land is owned by somebody other than the citizen. How does that make a citizen a serf on one model and not the other? Furthermore, on what conceivable basis do you contend that the [i:376o3x0y]person[/i:376o3x0y] is owned by any feudal lord (or even that we [i:376o3x0y]have[/i:376o3x0y] feudal lords) under the present system?
[quote:376o3x0y]You used the word "precisely." [/quote:376o3x0y]
Whyever should I not?
[quote:376o3x0y]I don't need to go over each part of the Nstadt Constitution to prove it doesn't work for a wider CDS; that is not my point.[/quote:376o3x0y]
Is it or is it not your point that our present constitution is incapable of working for the wider CDS? If not, why do you propose a new constitution instead, instead of backing the already popular idea of local governments within our present model? If so, why do you claim that you do not "need" to go over each part of the current constitution of the CDS, and explain, in respect of each part, why it is unsuitable for the wider CDS?
[quote:376o3x0y] My point is that my proposal creates a more flexible super-government, and would be more attractive to potential member governments or at-large citizens.[/quote:376o3x0y]
What, precisely, do you claim is underirably [i:376o3x0y]inflexible[/i:376o3x0y] about our present constitution, and, in respect of each instance of such alleged undesirable inflexibility, why, exactly, do you claim that it is undesirable?
[quote:376o3x0y]You keep repeating in other posts that "The CDS government is the national government. It has never been the government of one part of a wider nation. Why do you repeatedly insist that that is what it is? The government of the CDS is no more a local government than the government of Monaco or the Isle of Man. " I agree. But what you need to realize is that until a few weeks ago, the Constitution of Nstadt was NEVER referred to as the Constitution of the CDS.[/quote:376o3x0y]
That is because nobody had got around to changing the names. What does that have to do with anything?
[quote:376o3x0y] That is why I call the city's constitution by the name it has had for a very long time - the Constitution of Nstadt.[/quote:376o3x0y]
That has been a misleading way of describing it ever since we acquired Colonia Nova and passed an Act permitting franchulates.
[quote:376o3x0y]I have a proposal. It is not my intention that it be passed without amendment or discussion. My point, again, is that a national government like the CDS needs a Constitution suited to its needs.[/quote:376o3x0y]
Do you believe that the constitution of the CDS as it stands now is [i:376o3x0y]un[/i:376o3x0y]suited to its needs? If so, in respect of each individual part that you claim is so unsuited, why, exactly, do you claim that it is unsuited, and in what precise way is it unsuited, do you claim?
[quote:376o3x0y]Simply renaming Nstadt's Constitution doesn't suddenly make it a tried and true national Constitution.[/quote:376o3x0y]
Renaming it has nothing to do with it - it is a constitution that always has been the constitution of a [i:376o3x0y]nation[/i:376o3x0y], rather than the constitution of a locality of a larger nation. Merely because we are expanding (and therefore need to remove the geographical reference from our name) does not mean that that has changed in that respect- how can it?
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":376o3x0y]As I have explained elsewhere, there would be new incentives to do so which never existed before, including the following:
A. A fraternal organization of democratic governments (perhaps adopting many featues of Nstadt or other member governments to save time in setting up)[/quote:376o3x0y]
Why do you assume that a newly created nation would find this more attractive than absolute sovereignty?
[quote:376o3x0y]B. The possibility of enforceable contracts with a group beyond its own citizenry
C. Taking part in a judiciary and government services which allows better division of labor and more professionalism
D. Having something to offer potential citizens that makes citizenship in their government more attractive and more meaningful. [/quote:376o3x0y]
Why do you imagine that these would encourage the creation of new nations, rather than encouraging people to join our existing nation?
[quote:376o3x0y]Also, simply saying "Hey, we want to see democratic governments form and we're here to help" is itself a great encouragement to people who might have toyed with the thought but need encouragement.[/quote:376o3x0y]
Why do we want to say that, rather than, "If you want to be in a democratic government, join us"?
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":376o3x0y]I will repeat what I have written before so it's easy to find the answer to this question:"the ability to choose how reps to the national govt will be elected and when, the ability to set unique land fees and raise taxes locally, to choose the requirements for citizenship in the sim, and to create additional local laws and systems to carry them out (courts, executive, etc.)."[/quote:376o3x0y]
I have now addressed this elsewhere.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":376o3x0y]Well, I suppose if you don't have an interest in experimenting with democracy, you don't have to do so. But I thought that was what you said you wanted to do from the first days you were in SL. [/quote:376o3x0y]
Why do you assume that democracy is more effectively spread with lots of little governments than one big one? Experimentation with lots of different models is not necessarily compatible with an experiment in trying to make a single model as successful as possible; why should the potential success of one model be traded against the questionable aim of trying to create lots and lots of models?
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":376o3x0y]Maybe none. Maybe some will just enfranchulate with Nstadt. That's okay. But under my proposal, there is ALSO the possibility to innovate, to try new structures and arrangements (so long as they are judged democratic by the Executive and the Legislature). And there's the possibility to take the forms of Nstadt and make a government exactly like it, but with different people (read: personality conflicts), yet still be associated with Nstadt and other member governments in important ways.[/quote:376o3x0y]
You have never spelt out the relationship of this association - what, precisely, do you imagine that it is? What, exactly, does your constitution offer in this regard that the idea of local government under our present constitution does not?
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":376o3x0y]Nothing. I haven't said that anywhere. My proposal creates a strong and effective central government.[/quote:376o3x0y]
What advantage, therefore, is there in adopting your proposal over retaining our present system, and premitting franchulates to have local governments?
[quoteWell, even getting beyond the debate of whether the term nation can be used at all in the Second Life context, the use of these terms is meant to suggest creating structures which are useful and needed, while still keeping flexibility and innovation.[/quote]
Why does "spreading flexibility and innovation" entail that the CDS is an international organisation rather than a nation?
[quote:376o3x0y] And spreading the UDHR is a goal of Nstadt as well as the CDS in my proposal, which is an international rather than national law. But that's an aside.[/quote:376o3x0y]
That is not a well-conceived argument: the UNHDR is [i:376o3x0y]incorporated[/i:376o3x0y] into our national law. That does not make our national law inherently international.
[quote:376o3x0y]As I clarified in an earlier post, "The proposal I have submitted could surely be amended to allow multi-sim governments, if that would be desired. However, it would limit the number of representatives in the Legislature, unless the whole thing was moved to proportional representation. And that would be alright too. The point is not to restrict the growth of Nstadt, or sims that use the same constitution. The point is to open up the advantages of the CDS to other democratic sims (and thus encourage their formation) as well as to individuals (at-large citizens in my proposal)." And as I mentioned earlier, there would be new incentives to create democratic governments that haven't existed before.[/quote:376o3x0y]
I have dealt with at-large citizens on the other thread. But this still depends on there being some reason to suppose that what you propose will do something useful that our present model, with local governments, will not. You have so far provided no such reason.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":376o3x0y]Because I have repeated and refined the same points to answer the same questions, again and again, yet you still call my proposal "vague," "disastrous," and "confusing." [/quote:376o3x0y]
How is that a reason to believe that that is because I am ignoring what you write, rather than that there is something wrong with what you write, especially when I have set out [i:376o3x0y]in great detail[/i:376o3x0y] exactly what the problems of what you propose are.
Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
-
- Veteran debater
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm
Listen, friend Ashcroft.
I do not need to, nor is it my desire to prove that the current constitution of Nstadt absolutely could not work for a multisim government. My point is that what I have proposed has advantages, which I have repeatedly spelt out. It's like someone looking at an automobile and saying, "What's wrong with a horse?" Nothing is wrong with a horse. But the automobile will get you where you want to go faster!
I have come to the conclusion that I will never be able to convince you that my proposal is better. And that's okay. While I would value your support and your suggestions for improving my proposal, there are others who do see value in it and who are making suggestions for improving it.
If you imagine examples of how this proposal could be problematic if and when it is adopted, please share them. Your ideas will be used to improve it. But I will not drop the proposal just because you can't see the advantages it affords, even though they have been repeatedly defined and elaborated: