Straw poll - please vote

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":2561a47p]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![/quote:2561a47p]

That is not the point: you have not even explained [i:2561a47p]how[/i:2561a47p] your present constitution is better than our current constitution. You have not once even attempted to say, "This part of my constitution is better than this part of your constitution because this part of my constitution would allow one to do X, this part of your constitution would not allow one to do X; X is good because Y". [i:2561a47p]That[/i:2561a47p] is the sort of explanation that you need to make if your point, that we should relegate what is the current consitution of the CDS to deal only with Neufreistadt, and adopt a wholly new constitution for the CDS, even make sense.

[quote:2561a47p]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.[/quote:2561a47p]

That is because (1) it is too vague to be workable; and (2) [i:2561a47p]you have not even tried to explain [u:2561a47p]how[/u:2561a47p] it would be better[/i:2561a47p] (see above).

[quote:2561a47p]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:[/quote:2561a47p]

You have [b:2561a47p]not once[/b:2561a47p] stated what the advantages of this proposal are over and above having our present constitution with local governments - why do you insist that you have? Where have you specifically and precisely compared the two?

I am left utterly baffled as to what exactly you are trying to achieve. The most important question of all, that you have [u:2561a47p][b:2561a47p][i:2561a47p]still[/i:2561a47p][/b:2561a47p][/u:2561a47p] failed to answer, despite me having asked it over and over again, is what precise advantage that you imagine that this would have over us using our present constitution with local governments?

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

Arghh!
Does anyone other than Ashcroft think that I have not explained the potential advantages of my proposal over the current CDS system in both this thread and the one in the legislative discussion forum? If so, I will explain them again. However, it is my strong suspicion that Ash is just arguing for some reason that I do not understand and could never be placated.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":1iedwdxv]Does anyone other than Ashcroft think that I have not explained the potential advantages of my proposal over the current CDS system in both this thread and the one in the legislative discussion forum? If so, I will explain them again. However, it is my strong suspicion that Ash is just arguing for some reason that I do not understand and could never be placated.[/quote:1iedwdxv]

What you have not explained is why you think that any of what you seek can only be acheived by adopting your constitution as the constitution of the CDS, rather than by using (and if necessary, making small adaptations to) our present constitution.

As far as I can see, most of what you want to acheive can already be achieved by using local governments under our present constitution, and all of those few things that cannot (such as citizens at large and having local governments choose the way in which national representatives can be elected) can be achieved by making small revisions to our present constitution.

Aside for the moment from the question of whether it is a good idea to have citizens at large, or to have local governments choose the way in which national representatives are elected, given that, if that was what you wanted to achieve, it can be achieved with minimal revision of our present constitution, why do you propose such a radical plan as to make our present constitution the constiution of nothing more than a local government, and have your constitution instead as the constitution of the CDS? What is the advantage in that? You have not once explained that.

[Diderot Mirabeau]

I am prioritising my contribution in this forum at the moment since I don't like much being dragged into lengthy tirades of deconstructing sentences to "prove or have disproved" the feasibility of one's visions. For me the forums have always been more than a gallery in which to shoot down each other's proposals by prematurely engaging in detailed and technocratic nit-picking when creative thoughts are still just in the process of taking shape.

As I see it Gxeremio proposes a model of organising, which gives our expansionist vision a third leg on which to stand in addition to the already recognised initiatives of sim acquisition and franchulating (or whatever it may be called at the moment). Personally, I cannot help but see this third leg as sympathetic to an idea advanced in a previous submission of mine, where I proposed utilising the CDS as a forum for like-minded communities in SL working to achieve some sort of democratic governance internally and co-operating in the areas of toolmaking, knowledge transfer, institution building and advocating our needs vis-a-vis Linden Lab.

The CDS label seems to have been embodied with its own life now as a denominator for the collective entity of two geographically disparate sims so rather than discussing a name it might be more fruitful to debate the idea of our government pursuing an active initiative to develop a "vessel", a "forum" or a "working group" through which our aim of spreading democracy within SL can be pursued without at the same time requiring people to become land-owning citizens of a territory ruled through CDS covenant/franchulate.

As I see it we have lacked something like this in our foreign policy as it has been unfolded so far: A vision of how we might spread democracy in SL by pro-actively seeking out and co-opting/cooperating with other communities that share or could be convinced to share our aspirations of becoming territorially based and governed by some form of democracy.

To me it is rather clear that our bargaining case would stand infinitely stronger if we could offer a wide palette of options of association with our republic, confederation or whatever it is that we are. The concept of franchulates has brought us some way in achieving this but it is not entirely clear to me that the franchulate taxonomy enumerated earlier would be able to satisfy the range of all the different needs and wishes that prospectively sympathetic communities might have. A community might well desire our facilitation in setting up a system of territorrially based and democratically regulated governance but for example be reluctant to subjugate itself to the either the authority of a "federal RA" or a judiciary not necessarily incorporating the values by which the community might wish to govern itself.

To these communities we could then offer a free association agreement at the level of independenet states meeting to discuss possibilities for cooperation, knowledge transfer and shared development. After some time of observation and getting experiences such communities might come to the conclusion that our model of local governance is not so bad after all and choose to become more closely associated with us so as to enjoy the benefits of a judiciary or similar. They may also choose to continue pursuing their own way but we will still have had the opportunity to bring to them our fertile ideas of democratic governance rather than forcing them to choose between swallowing "the whole package" or being left to pull themselves up from their anarchic/autocratic quagmire by the bootstrap.

It is my sincere impression that the Esperanto community of Neufreistadt offers us a unique opportunity of gaining experience with how this model could work in practice and I feel that Gxeremio's proposal deserves a response from the political factions in power that goes beyond the long, nit-picking diatribe presented in the thread thus far.

I would thus encourage that the debate continues especially among representatives of the RA and that it be centered around the question of how to develop a vessel for our foreign policy that is based on pro-active outreach to budding communities within SL that could be brought to desire governing themselves democratically as a territory and working together with us to achieve that aim.

If at any point this idea is deemed to be feasible perhaps a foreign service could be set up under the executive enlisting an experienced and trained corps of democracy ambassadors to seek out communities and sell to them the idea of transitioning to democracy within the cooperative framework that I see Gxeremio as proposing?

P.S.: I will not reply to any followups of the style that challenge me to point out at a detailed level deficiencies within our pre-existing body of laws to achieve this objective or which break my post into 10 - 15 fragments of stand-alone quotes challenging individual assertions and formulations within these.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

Diderot, when you write of a "third leg" of expansion, of the CDS now already being the name of the government that is currently the government of Neufreistadt and Colonia Nova, and of helping other democratic communities form themselves, I am put in mind of my earlier suggestion that any attempt to form an inter-governmental body to promote democratic nations in SecondLife be a project apart from the CDS. The name that I suggested then, and will suggest again now, is the "Commonwealth of Virtual Nations" (or "Commonwealth of Virtual Democratic Nations" or "Commonwealth of Virtual Democracies" if there is a strong desire to represent the democratic element in the name).

If there really is a demand for such a commonwealth, it should be quite separate from the CDS as it exists now, and be instead a loose organisation aimed at promoting democracy among people who want to start their own communities in SecondLife.

However, some caution must be exercised to ensure that the commonwealth does not make people less willing than they otherwise might be to participate in the CDS as it stands now: after all, our strength lies in our unity.

Furthermore, a commonwealth, as such, cannot sensibly have a national legislature, executive or judiciary (those organisaitons only work properly on a national scale), and the CDS should certainly never give over its own legislative, executive or judicial power to such an institution. If a commonwealth exists at all, it should be based on the principles of international law, regulated by treaties and agreement.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[b:wnm4hh8t][u:wnm4hh8t]Bridging the gap - a suggestion for a workable commonwealth[/u:wnm4hh8t][/b:wnm4hh8t]

There is evidently some support for an idea of a commonwealth, given what Pat and Diderot have written. My main concerns about what Gxeremio has proposed was not the idea of having any sort of commonwealth at all, but the particular model that Gxeremio sought to adopt, in particular:

(1) that he originally proposed confining our present government for ever to Neufreistadt alone (which I understand is now no longer proposed); and

(2) that the proposal seems to fall between two stools, in that it is not really clear from the text of the proposal whether Gxeremio intended to create a [i:wnm4hh8t]nation[/i:wnm4hh8t] or a [i:wnm4hh8t]commonwealth[/i:wnm4hh8t] of nations.

As to the second, the problem is that Gxeremio at once writes about "member states", but also provides for a single legislature, executive and judiciary for the over-arching organisation, as if it were a nation itself. The division of power between the larger organisation and its "member states" is very unclear. If it is a [i:wnm4hh8t]nation[/i:wnm4hh8t] that Gxeremio wants, we already have one in the CDS as it presently stands. If it is a [i:wnm4hh8t]commonwealth[/i:wnm4hh8t] of nations that Gxeremio wants, then the organisation needs to look rather different.

It seems from reading what Gxeremio has written so far, although it is not fully clear, that what Gxeremio is really after is a commonwealth.

There is some clue as to why Gxeremio had proposed a single legislature, executive and judiciary for this model from when he wrote above that he wanted there to be enforcable contracts. If what Gxeremio is after, which appears to be the case, is an organisation that enables there to be multiple independent [i:wnm4hh8t]nations[/i:wnm4hh8t], but for contracts made in one member nation to be enforcable in another, then there is an alternative means of acheiving that that does not encounter any of the two problems that I outline above: that is a commonwealth organisation, quite distinct from the CDS, (called something like the "[i:wnm4hh8t]Commonwealth of Virtual Democratic Nations[/i:wnm4hh8t]", as suggested above), which has [i:wnm4hh8t]reciprocal enforcement agreements[/i:wnm4hh8t] amongst its members, so that certain court orders of the courts of one member nation can be enforcable in another member nation.

For example, A enters into a contract with B. A is a citizen of the CDS, and B is a citizen of Greater Nowhere, both members of the Commonwealth. A and B make no stipulation in their agreement about whether the contract law of Greater Nowhere or of the CDS shall apply, but, in consequence of a rule of law about the conflict of laws that applies in both the CDS and Greater Nowhere which both nations had to enact as a precondition to joining the Commonwealth, the parties are deemed to be bound by (for example) the contract law of the CDS. A wishes to bring an action for breach of contract against B. Because of the default rule on choice of law, A brings the action in the CDS courts. A wins and obtains a court order against B, ordering the payment of compensation. B defaults on that payment. Because of a rule of law that applies in Greater Nowhere, the enactment of which was a precondition of Greater Nowhere becoming a member of the Commonwealth, A can then apply to the a court in Greater Nowhere to enforce the judgment obtained in the CDS courts against B, and an order could then be obtained in a Greater Nowhere court depriving B of her or his land in Greater Nowhere. (If A and B had in their contract expressly stated that they were to be bound by the law of contract in Greater Nowhere, then A would have had to bring the action in the courts of Greater Nowhere instead).

Another example: X, a citizen of the CDS, visits Greater Nowhere, and there meets Y, a citizen of Greater Nowhere. X and Y have a falling out, and X starts making defamatory and untrue comments to people all over Greater Nowhere that have an adverse effect on Y's business there, and Y loses money. Y brings an action against X in the courts of Greater Nowhere, and is awarded compensation. X refuses to pay. In consequence of the rule of law on reciprocal enforcement described above, Y is then entitled to bring an action before the courts of the CDS to enforce (by forfeiture of land if necessary) her or his award of damages against X in the Greater Nowhere courts.

If one nation refused to enforce the orders of another nation's courts, that nation could then be thrown out of the commonwealth, and the other nations would no longer enforce orders of its courts. The Commonwealth could be strucured with a Council, consisting of representatives chosen by the nations that comprise it (perhaps in numbers from each commensurate with the citizen population of each polled at six-monthly intervals, albeit with a cap and a floor, similar to the EU idea of qualified majority voting), which would set general Commonwealth policy, and a specialist legal panel (appointed by the Council) which would decide (1) whether any potential member adequately fulfiled the membership criteria (see below), and (2) whether any member ought be ejected, suspended or warned for breach of commonwealth rules. Any nation that wished to join would have to sign and ratify a notarised treaty. The Commonwealth would, therefore, clearly be an [i:wnm4hh8t]international[/i:wnm4hh8t] organisation.

Because of the rules on reciporcal enforcement, it would be very important to make sure that nations joining the commonwealth were properly democratic and had adequate checks and balances (constitutional entrenchment of provisions requiring regular elections, a truly independent and impartial judiciary, etc.). Any nation applying for membership would have to pass strict tests on democratic legitimacy and in order to join.

All of that would mean that there would be essentially two paths to a group becoming a part of a democracy with enforcability against CDS citizens:

(1) join the CDS as a franchulate, with local government if desired; or

(2) create its own, fully-fledged, independent nation that conforms to the entry requirements for the Commonwealth of Virtual Democratic Nations, and then apply to join the commonwealth, enacting laws giving effect to the necessary reciprocal enforcement agreements locally.

Option (1) would be by far the easier and faster option, as it would not require anybody to make up an entire government structure that conforms with commonwealth standards, but it would mean relinquishing at least some small degree of control to the CDS (albeit that ameliorated to some significant degree by the ability to have local government). Option (2) would require far more work both to set up and maintain, although would give a greater degree of independence, whilst still retaining the reciprocal enforcement.

I hope that this idea is one that can help to take us forward with both a strong and effective CDS and the fostering of other nations that Gxeremio had hoped for. Gxeremio - does this idea make sense to you? If anybody has any questions, do ask.

(Incidentally, the question of whether to have at-large citizens is a different question than the question of whether we should have a commonwealth: each individual nation of the commonwealth would be able to determine its own definition of citizenship. Whether the CDS should allow landless citizens is probably best reserved to another thread).

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

Ashcroft, I think your most recent post begins to get at the idea of what I'm aiming for. However, I do support something different than simply "We'll enforce your rulings if you enforce ours" type of organization. My proposal also provides for better division of labor (we are talking about microcommunities here), arbitration in disputes, collection and dissemination of information, and the possibility of Commonwealth-wide projects. For these to be in place, or even for a simpler Commonwealth as you have proposed to be in place, requires certain structures that have the authority to make and enforcce decisions, which I have provided for in my proposal.
It is heartening that you seem to be beginning to understand the potential benefits of a strong but flexible Commonwealth, which I have been calling the CDS because the CDS has the potential to become it with the adoption of my proposal.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Perhaps not. Couldn't you create commonwealth wide projects via something akin to interstate compacts?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":23y2kkhu]Ashcroft, I think your most recent post begins to get at the idea of what I'm aiming for. However, I do support something different than simply "We'll enforce your rulings if you enforce ours" type of organization.[/quote:23y2kkhu]

The reason that I proposed it in that way was because it just does not make any sense having a single system of law for multiple nations. Either have one big nation, with one system of law, but local governments, or lots of nations, with lots of systems of law, but reciprocal enforcement agreements. One of my principal concerns with your idea, as stated above, has always been the irreconcilability between having multiple independent states, but a single system of law.

[quote:23y2kkhu]My proposal also provides for better division of labor (we are talking about microcommunities here), arbitration in disputes, collection and dissemination of information, and the possibility of Commonwealth-wide projects.[/quote:23y2kkhu]

I am not sure why these require a supranational, rather than an intergovernmental, organisation - arbitration of disputes between citizens is done by the national judicial systems, arbitration of disputes between nations about commonwealth rules by the legal panel of the commonwealth, and the commonwealth council could always co-ordinate commonwealth-wide projects.

[quote:23y2kkhu]For these to be in place, or even for a simpler Commonwealth as you have proposed to be in place, requires certain structures that have the authority to make and enforcce decisions, which I have provided for in my proposal.[/quote:23y2kkhu]

Decisions are made by the council, and enforced by the legal panel ejecting member nations from the commonwealth, suspending them for a fixed term, or issuing a formal warning.

[quote:23y2kkhu]It is heartening that you seem to be beginning to understand the potential benefits of a strong but flexible Commonwealth, which I have been calling the CDS because the CDS has the potential to become it with the adoption of my proposal.[/quote:23y2kkhu]

One of my greatest concerns about your proposal was that, at fisrt at least, and perhaps even now, it seemed as if you were suggesting that we have a loose commonwealth [i:23y2kkhu]instead[/i:23y2kkhu] of a CDS that expands by franchulates. That would be a disaster, as the CDS as a unitary state with local government, with multiple island sims and mainland (and even possibly island) franchulates, has much to offer that a mere commonwealth does not. However, if there really are people out there who want to create their own nations, but belong to an international organisation that assists them with things such as reciprocal enforcement agreements (or even education on how to run government well), then it might be worthwhile having a commonwealth such as I outline above [i:23y2kkhu]as well as[/i:23y2kkhu] the CDS as is currently proposed.

Whatever the merits of the idea of a commonwealth, the creation of a commonwealth should not stand in the way of the expansion of the unitary state that is the CDS.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

My main problems with your counterproposal for a loose commonwealth are:
1. Having reciprocal enforcement agreements without any say in making the laws you are enforcing among your own citizens.
2. When communities (nations in your parlance) are so small, it is almost certain that many or most of the disuptes will be between people of different sims. A clear judiciary, set up by mutual agreement (the Commonwealth government), is a better option than being tried and sentenced in a "foreign" court and then being forced to abide by the ruling by your own government.
3. The issue of collecting and disseminating information on how bonded citizens are (for the sake of screening people before entering agreements with them) has not yet been addressed by your counter-proposal.
4. Commonwealth-wide projects are best put forth by a standing group (the Legislature) with the power to levy fees for their implementation.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":2c0g5y7e]My main problems with your counterproposal for a loose commonwealth are:
1. Having reciprocal enforcement agreements without any say in making the laws you are enforcing among your own citizens.[/quote:2c0g5y7e]

This is no different to real life, where people are bound by the laws of a state that they visit, or where rules on the conflict of laws or the choice of law means that contracts are governed by a state different to that in which they reside. Indeed, we SecondLife users are all bound by the law of California to a limited extent, since we all agreed so to be bound in a choice of law clause in the Terms of Service.

The way to ensure that this does not cause problems is, as stated above, to ensure that each member country has to pass stringent tests on democratic legitimacy and judicial independence and impartiality before joining. Also, citizens can prevent themselves being exposed to the laws of other nations simply by not visiting those nations, and either not entering into contractual arrangements at all with citizens of those nations, or, if they do, ensuring that the contract has a choice of law clause stipulating that it be governed by the citizen's home nation.

[quote:2c0g5y7e]2. When communities (nations in your parlance) are so small, it is almost certain that many or most of the disuptes will be between people of different sims. A clear judiciary, set up by mutual agreement (the Commonwealth government), is a better option than being tried and sentenced in a "foreign" court and then being forced to abide by the ruling by your own government.[/quote:2c0g5y7e]

If the communities are going to be this tiny, do they really need to be separate nations at all, rather than just being CDS franchulates?

Again, however, what you suggest above does not address the fundamental problem that I have with your proposal: if you are suggesting a single legislature, executive and judiciary with wide powers of enforcement for this entire commonwealth, then how, exactly, is having a commonwealth better than (or different to) having a unitary CDS as has always been proposed? In other words, is your proposal really anything more than "let's change the CDS constituiton to something more vague"? If so, it is very unclear what benefit that that would achieve. If not, then it is not at all clear how it is different. If you think that we [i:2c0g5y7e]should[/i:2c0g5y7e] have a single, unitary nation, why should that single, unitary nation not have the present constitution of the CDS?

If, conversely, you want a looser arrangement than we have at present, then what you propose will not achieve it: it will just make another body that has the capacity to do everything that the CDS has the capacity to do now, only it will be ruled by a more vague constitution. The only way to make truly independent nations, which is what you want, is for them each to have their own, fully-fledged national legislature, executive and judiciary.

To put it another way, to have a commonwealth of independent nations, each of the members must truly qualify as nations by having a complete national legislative, executive and judicial structure. If these nations are going to be truly independent, they need to have the institutional wherewithal to exercise that independence. If, conversely, a group of people does not have the wherewithal or the desire to create for itself a fully functioning nation, then it would be a very bad idea indeed nevertheless to treat the group as if it was a fully functioning nation. If a group of people want all the advantages of government, including a significant degree of local control, without having to make their own national government from scratch, then they can enfranchulate with the CDS. It seems to me as if you want groups to be able to have their cake (by being treated as independent nations) and eat it (by not having to do the work required in creating the institutions of a truly independent nation). With power comes responsibility, which was why I suggested that the entry requirements for the commonwealth be strict.

[quote:2c0g5y7e]3. The issue of collecting and disseminating information on how bonded citizens are (for the sake of screening people before entering agreements with them) has not yet been addressed by your counter-proposal.[/quote:2c0g5y7e]

Citizens at large is a quite separate issue, as I have stated many times, from the idea of a commonwealth. There is no reason, however, why, if one or more member nations of the commonwealth enabled people to be citizens merely by taking out a bond, that that nation, or the commonwealth itself, could not disseminate the sort of information that you suggest be disseminated in respect thereof. This is certainly not a problem whose only solution is the constitution that you propose.

[quote:2c0g5y7e]4. Commonwealth-wide projects are best put forth by a standing group (the Legislature) with the power to levy fees for their implementation.[/quote:2c0g5y7e]

There is no reason why the Council of the Commonwealth could not pass a rule requiring member states to contribute (on pain of being ejected from the commonwealth) funds towards projects.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

Ash, you have demonstrated an attempt to reform your forum style a bit, so I'll indulge you with some answers here.
Seriously, you raise good questions in your last post, which I am happy to answer.

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2o63ajft][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":2o63ajft]My main problems with your counterproposal for a loose commonwealth are:
1. Having reciprocal enforcement agreements without any say in making the laws you are enforcing among your own citizens.[/quote:2o63ajft]

This is no different to real life, where people are bound by the laws of a state that they visit, or where rules on the conflict of laws or the choice of law means that contracts are governed by a state different to that in which they reside. Indeed, we SecondLife users are all bound by the law of California to a limited extent, since we all agreed so to be bound in a choice of law clause in the Terms of Service.

The way to ensure that this does not cause problems is, as stated above, to ensure that each member country has to pass stringent tests on democratic legitimacy and judicial independence and impartiality before joining. Also, citizens can prevent themselves being exposed to the laws of other nations simply by not visiting those nations, and either not entering into contractual arrangements at all with citizens of those nations, or, if they do, ensuring that the contract has a choice of law clause stipulating that it be governed by the citizen's home nation. [/quote:2o63ajft]

It IS a problem. What if a citizen of Nstadt and a citizen of Community X make their agreement over IMs and pass the notecards without meeting face to face? Or when they do meet, they meet in another government's sim, or on the mainland which has no government? Whose law would be enforced, Nstadt or Community X, or none? Local laws in my proposal are binding to citizens of the locality only (or to create some standards of behavior for people who want to visit) and I don't picture a lot of contract law falling into that category. Under your system of reciprocal recognition, local laws are binding to the people with whom they do business as well. You suggest a "choice of law clause" as a workaround, but what that means in effect is that the enforcement of the law is unclear to the other party, unless they happen to be expert on the local laws of the person they're contracting with. The whole system would become confusing and unenforcable. Contract law created by a Commonwealth, on the other hand, would be clearer, and how disputes would be arbitrated would be clear too. Such laws necessitate a body to make them (Legislature), and a body to interpret and apply them (Judiciary).

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2o63ajft][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":2o63ajft]2. When communities (nations in your parlance) are so small, it is almost certain that many or most of the disuptes will be between people of different sims. A clear judiciary, set up by mutual agreement (the Commonwealth government), is a better option than being tried and sentenced in a "foreign" court and then being forced to abide by the ruling by your own government.[/quote:2o63ajft]

If the communities are going to be this tiny, do they really need to be separate nations at all, rather than just being CDS franchulates?

Again, however, what you suggest above does not address the fundamental problem that I have with your proposal: if you are suggesting a single legislature, executive and judiciary with wide powers of enforcement for this entire commonwealth, then how, exactly, is having a commonwealth better than (or different to) having a unitary CDS as has always been proposed? In other words, is your proposal really anything more than "let's change the CDS constituiton to something more vague"? If so, it is very unclear what benefit that that would achieve. If not, then it is not at all clear how it is different. If you think that we [i:2o63ajft]should[/i:2o63ajft] have a single, unitary nation, why should that single, unitary nation not have the present constitution of the CDS?[/quote:2o63ajft]

I have specified several benefits of my Commonwealth proposal over the unitary CDS under the current Constitution, which I will restate here:
1) Simpler to understand and shorter.
2) Guaranteed representation of member governments' interests in the Legislature.
3) Provisions already in place for member governments to be distinct in their applications of democracy (not dependent on some future unspecified act of Chancellor or the RA).
4) Commonwealth not tied to land fees in any way - don't collect them, don't pay them, don't make rules about them. That is a reserved power for member governments.
5) Provision for at-large citizens, which I can understand you might not want in your local Nstadt government, but which would be beneficial to have in a Commonwealth so that there are more people against whom agreements and law are enforceable.

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2o63ajft]If, conversely, you want a looser arrangement than we have at present, then what you propose will not achieve it: it will just make another body that has the capacity to do everything that the CDS has the capacity to do now, only it will be ruled by a more vague constitution. The only way to make truly independent nations, which is what you want, is for them each to have their own, fully-fledged national legislature, executive and judiciary.

To put it another way, to have a commonwealth of independent nations, each of the members must truly qualify as nations by having a complete national legislative, executive and judicial structure. If these nations are going to be truly independent, they need to have the institutional wherewithal to exercise that independence. If, conversely, a group of people does not have the wherewithal or the desire to create for itself a fully functioning nation, then it would be a very bad idea indeed nevertheless to treat the group as if it was a fully functioning nation. If a group of people want all the advantages of government, including a significant degree of local control, without having to make their own national government from scratch, then they can enfranchulate with the CDS. It seems to me as if you want groups to be able to have their cake (by being treated as independent nations) and eat it (by not having to do the work required in creating the institutions of a truly independent nation). With power comes responsibility, which was why I suggested that the entry requirements for the commonwealth be strict.[/quote:2o63ajft]

Obviously there is still some misunderstanding of what kinds of groups might be member governments. Here are some examples of groups that I could imagine:
A. A directly democratic sim (all legislative, no executive or judicial).
B. A sim governed by a town council (same as above).
C. A sim in which the power to vote was proportional to land held in the sim. (could have all three, or only one or two branches)
D. A sim with only one elected leader who for their term of office governed the sim as they saw fit, with citizen input (only executive, no legislative or judicial)
E. A meritocratic government where successful completion of tests or tasks qualified people for leadership in the government (could have all three or only one or two branches).
And so on. As I have demonstrated, these would be democratic local (member) governments that would not be doing the things you outlined above, yet could benefit from interacting with one another through an overarching Commonwealth. It is unsubstantiated to say that if their systems aren't as complicated as Nstadt's, they can't be considered a government.

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2o63ajft][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":2o63ajft]3. The issue of collecting and disseminating information on how bonded citizens are (for the sake of screening people before entering agreements with them) has not yet been addressed by your counter-proposal.[/quote:2o63ajft]

Citizens at large is a quite separate issue, as I have stated many times, from the idea of a commonwealth. There is no reason, however, why, if one or more member nations of the commonwealth enabled people to be citizens merely by taking out a bond, that that nation, or the commonwealth itself, could not disseminate the sort of information that you suggest be disseminated in respect thereof. This is certainly not a problem whose only solution is the constitution that you propose.[/quote:2o63ajft]

Putting aside the issue of at-large citizens for a moment, my proposal would allow anyone who wanted to business with someone in the Commonwealth (say they wanted to do business with me) to clearly and easily see to what degree I was bonded to the government of the Commonwealth. If I was bonded only through owning a microplot in Nstadt, they could ask I increase my bond before doing serious business with me, so they know I am more invested and more liable if I default. This is a huge benefit and would likely be a major factor in the growth of the Commonwealth (it would give a compelling reason for legitimate business people to join, to prove their good intentions to prospective customers).

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2o63ajft]][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":2o63ajft]]4. Commonwealth-wide projects are best put forth by a standing group (the Legislature) with the power to levy fees for their implementation.[/quote:2o63ajft]

There is no reason why the Council of the Commonwealth could not pass a rule requiring member states to contribute (on pain of being ejected from the commonwealth) funds towards projects.[/quote:2o63ajft]

I would submit to you that anything called the "Council of the Commonwealth" would in fact be a legislative branch.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":1ps9w6kp]It IS a problem. What if a citizen of Nstadt and a citizen of Community X make their agreement over IMs and pass the notecards without meeting face to face? Or when they do meet, they meet in another government's sim, or on the mainland which has no government? Whose law would be enforced, Nstadt or Community X, or none? Local laws in my proposal are binding to citizens of the locality only (or to create some standards of behavior for people who want to visit) and I don't picture a lot of contract law falling into that category. Under your system of reciprocal recognition, local laws are binding to the people with whom they do business as well. You suggest a "choice of law clause" as a workaround, but what that means in effect is that the enforcement of the law is unclear to the other party, unless they happen to be expert on the local laws of the person they're contracting with. The whole system would become confusing and unenforcable.[/quote:1ps9w6kp]

Ahh, you misunderstood what I suggested - the idea is that there would be [i:1ps9w6kp]default rules[/i:1ps9w6kp] about whose law of contract would apply if citizens of different nations made contracts with each other without stipulating which law should apply. The best way of doing that to ensure that it is very, very easy for anyone to work out which law applies (unless anybody has any brighter ideas) is to have a simple heirachy of nations. Suppose that we have three nations, A, B, and C, and they have the following heirachy of contract law, set by the Commonwealth Council:

A
B
C.

Now, suppose a citizen of A contracts with a citizen of B without a choice of law clause. In that case, the contract law of A would prevail. Similarly if A and C contracted without a choice of law clause. B's law would prevail if B and C contracted, and, if A, B and C contracted together, A's law would prevail. A choice of law clause could, of course, always change the default position.

[quote:1ps9w6kp]Contract law created by a Commonwealth, on the other hand, would be clearer, and how disputes would be arbitrated would be clear too. Such laws necessitate a body to make them (Legislature), and a body to interpret and apply them (Judiciary).[/quote:1ps9w6kp]

If a group joining the commonwealth wants to give this much power to a single legislature, might it not just as well become a CDS franchulate?

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1ps9w6kp]I have specified several benefits of my Commonwealth proposal over the unitary CDS under the current Constitution, which I will restate here:
1) Simpler to understand and shorter.[/quote:1ps9w6kp]

This is a very different argument from that which you have presented so far. We must be very clear indeed about what we are discussing. Are you or are you not proposing anything more than "let's scrap the constitution of the CDS and have mine instead"? If not, then your point is not well-made, and has nothing to do with encouraging other nations.

As I have made abundantly clear time and time again, the complexity of the [i:1ps9w6kp]document[/i:1ps9w6kp] is a different thing entirely from the complexity of the [i:1ps9w6kp]practical application[/i:1ps9w6kp] of the law that it creates. The task that law has to do is inherently and unavoidably vastly complicated. A simply drafted piece of legislation is inherently vague. Your constituiton is extremely vague. Vagueness in the source of laws makes the laws more, not less, complex to operate in practice because the complexity has to be resolved ad hoc, rather than having been resolved in advance. Since what law has to do is inherently complex, it does it best by addressing that complexity in advance, rather than by ignoring it and hoping that it will go away, or that somebody else will deal with it later on.

Our present constitution has been developed over a long time, with input from many people, and represents a carefully-constructed, precisely balanced, hard-negotiated instrument that has served us very well in the time that we have been here already. In order to suggest that it is so bad as should be discarded entirely (or relegated to nothing more than the constitution of a local government, forever confined to a single island sim), very, very strong reasons are needed indeed. The mere fact that yours appears simpler (i.e., has fewer words) is most certainly not such a reason. Radical change needs radically strong reasons to support it.

[quote:1ps9w6kp]2) Guaranteed representation of member governments' interests in the Legislature.[/quote:1ps9w6kp]

First of all, you have still not explained why this is desirable, and why this is better than people being represented by each individual citizen having a single vote on who should be elected to the legislature.

Secondly, this can be achieved (in respect of representatives of local government) with the DPU's senate proposal, without radically overhauling our constitution.

Thirdly, under the commonwealth proposal as suggested above, each member nation will have one or more seats on the Council of the Commonwealth, which each may decide how it fills.

[quote:1ps9w6kp]3) Provisions already in place for member governments to be distinct in their applications of democracy (not dependent on some future unspecified act of Chancellor or the RA).[/quote:1ps9w6kp]

This is not something that you achieve with your proposal, since your legislature has no fewer powers than ours (and, indeed, without a Scientific Council, its power is even more unchecked).

[quote:1ps9w6kp]4) Commonwealth not tied to land fees in any way - don't collect them, don't pay them, don't make rules about them. That is a reserved power for member governments.[/quote:1ps9w6kp]

Neither is the intergovernmental commonwealth that I propose. But, if an organisation is to purport to have a strong legislative, executive and judiciary, and to have the powers effectively of a nation, it must have the practical means of enforcing what it orders (by means of a truly national estate owner), or else the national institution becomes impotent and worthless.

As many have said before, in order for any system of government in SecondLife to be effective, the [i:1ps9w6kp]de jure[/i:1ps9w6kp] powers of governments need to be tied as closely as possible to the [i:1ps9w6kp]de facto[/i:1ps9w6kp] realities of control over assets in SecondLife. We have already been heavily criticised for having our governmental institutions too far from the source of [i:1ps9w6kp]de facto[/i:1ps9w6kp] power over banning and asset disposal; your proposal would mean that governmental power would be far, far further away still from real power. More than that, instead of the present position of having a largely neutral EO with no governmental functions, what you propose would (seemingly) involve politically-invested EOs, with great incentive to default on their duties to governments if things did not go their way politically.

Simply put, in your system, the real power is too far from the institutions that have theoretical authority for the system to be safe from abuses of power, [i:1ps9w6kp]coups d'etat[/i:1ps9w6kp], or other such forms of instability.

[quote:1ps9w6kp]5) Provision for at-large citizens, which I can understand you might not want in your local Nstadt government, but which would be beneficial to have in a Commonwealth so that there are more people against whom agreements and law are enforceable.[/quote:1ps9w6kp]

I have already explained why at-large citizens are a bad idea in general, and also that, even if one was to adopt the idea, one would certainly not have to replace the entire constitution of the CDS (or relegate our present constitution forever to be the local government of a single island sim, with all the real power given up to a higher commonwealth legislature) to achieve it: it could be achieved with a realatively straightforward amendment to Article IV of our present constitution.

[quote:1ps9w6kp]Obviously there is still some misunderstanding of what kinds of groups might be member governments. Here are some examples of groups that I could imagine:
A. A directly democratic sim (all legislative, no executive or judicial).
B. A sim governed by a town council (same as above).
C. A sim in which the power to vote was proportional to land held in the sim. (could have all three, or only one or two branches)
D. A sim with only one elected leader who for their term of office governed the sim as they saw fit, with citizen input (only executive, no legislative or judicial)
E. A meritocratic government where successful completion of tests or tasks qualified people for leadership in the government (could have all three or only one or two branches).
And so on. As I have demonstrated, these would be democratic local (member) governments that would not be doing the things you outlined above, yet could benefit from interacting with one another through an overarching Commonwealth. It is unsubstantiated to say that if their systems aren't as complicated as Nstadt's, they can't be considered a government.[/quote:1ps9w6kp]

I have never claimed that, if a government is not as [i:1ps9w6kp]complicated[/i:1ps9w6kp] as that of the CDS then it cannot be a government at all: my point was quite simple. It was that, either a nation is truly independent, in which case it can properly be treated as a member state of a commonwealth, and enjoy all the privelidges and independence that such a status gives it, but, to do so, it must have a fully-fledged government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and proper constitutional checks and balances (not necessarily in the same way as we have in the CDS), or a group wants a degree of democratic control over its local area, but to leave the broader policymaking up to a central legislature, to leave braoder policy implimentation to a central executive, and to leave all dispute resolution to a central judiciary. The latter group cannot be expected to be treated as fully independent because it is inherently [i:1ps9w6kp]not[/i:1ps9w6kp] independent: it depends for its executive and judiciary, and much of its legislature, on the wider government, although exercises some local freedoms. In that case, it would be most dangerous to treat an organisation that is not truly independent as if it was, since that would create a mismatch (as described above) between actual and purported power great enough to give real cause for concern. If people wanted to have partial government models, such as the legislature-only model that you described above, why should they not instead enfranchulate with the CDS?

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1ps9w6kp]Putting aside the issue of at-large citizens for a moment, my proposal would allow anyone who wanted to business with someone in the Commonwealth (say they wanted to do business with me) to clearly and easily see to what degree I was bonded to the government of the Commonwealth. If I was bonded only through owning a microplot in Nstadt, they could ask I increase my bond before doing serious business with me, so they know I am more invested and more liable if I default. This is a huge benefit and would likely be a major factor in the growth of the Commonwealth (it would give a compelling reason for legitimate business people to join, to prove their good intentions to prospective customers).[/quote:1ps9w6kp]

As I stated in the above post, this could quite easily be achieved without the use of your proposed constitution, with all of the institution-power mismatches that it could bring. This could quite readily be achieved under my model of a commonwealth, for example.

[quote:1ps9w6kp]I would submit to you that anything called the "Council of the Commonwealth" would in fact be a legislative branch.[/quote:1ps9w6kp]

In a sense, the Council of the Commonwealth would be a legislature of sorts, but it would not be a [i:1ps9w6kp]national[/i:1ps9w6kp] legislature: it would be more like one of the UN Councils. It would not have power to make laws directly applicable to citizens of the member nations, but rather would be able to set rules that the member nations, qua nations, should follow, on pain of being dismissed or suspended from the commonwealth. That structure more closely reflects the realities of the distribution of power in such circumstances.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3fvby2nc]
Ahh, you misunderstood what I suggested - the idea is that there would be [i:3fvby2nc]default rules[/i:3fvby2nc] about whose law of contract would apply if citizens of different nations made contracts with each other without stipulating which law should apply. The best way of doing that to ensure that it is very, very easy for anyone to work out which law applies (unless anybody has any brighter ideas) is to have a simple heirachy of nations. Suppose that we have three nations, A, B, and C, and they have the following heirachy of contract law, set by the Commonwealth Council:

A
B
C.

Now, suppose a citizen of A contracts with a citizen of B without a choice of law clause. In that case, the contract law of A would prevail. Similarly if A and C contracted without a choice of law clause. B's law would prevail if B and C contracted, and, if A, B and C contracted together, A's law would prevail. A choice of law clause could, of course, always change the default position. [/quote:3fvby2nc]

To state the obvious, doesn't a hierarchical system where one group's laws have more force than others within a "Commonwealth" have the inherent problem of inequality?

[quote:3fvby2nc]
If a group joining the commonwealth wants to give this much power to a single legislature, might it not just as well become a CDS franchulate?[/quote:3fvby2nc]

I feel that I am repeating myself often; that if you read carefully and remembered what I said I wouldn't have to keep answering these questions. I have given NUMEROUS reasons why a group might not want to become a franchulate, but could still want to become a member of my proposed CDS. They may want to have a different government type (as described by my examples A-E previously), may want to have a different setup of land fees, or allow at-large citizens of their member governments themselves, or have different rules for citizenship altogether, or want to set their own election timetables, or because they find Nstadt's structure confusing or overwhelming, or simply because they don't want to hand over land they already own to another person. These are SOME of the reasons I have mentioned in previous posts why groups might not want to enfranchulate. And by the way, how many people have enfranchulated so far if the system is so attractive?

[quote:3fvby2nc]This is a very different argument from that which you have presented so far. We must be very clear indeed about what we are discussing. Are you or are you not proposing anything more than "let's scrap the constitution of the CDS and have mine instead"? If not, then your point is not well-made, and has nothing to do with encouraging other nations.

As I have made abundantly clear time and time again, the complexity of the [i:3fvby2nc]document[/i:3fvby2nc] is a different thing entirely from the complexity of the [i:3fvby2nc]practical application[/i:3fvby2nc] of the law that it creates. The task that law has to do is inherently and unavoidably vastly complicated. A simply drafted piece of legislation is inherently vague. Your constituiton is extremely vague. Vagueness in the source of laws makes the laws more, not less, complex to operate in practice because the complexity has to be resolved ad hoc, rather than having been resolved in advance. Since what law has to do is inherently complex, it does it best by addressing that complexity in advance, rather than by ignoring it and hoping that it will go away, or that somebody else will deal with it later on.

Our present constitution has been developed over a long time, with input from many people, and represents a carefully-constructed, precisely balanced, hard-negotiated instrument that has served us very well in the time that we have been here already. In order to suggest that it is so bad as should be discarded entirely (or relegated to nothing more than the constitution of a local government, forever confined to a single island sim), very, very strong reasons are needed indeed. The mere fact that yours appears simpler (i.e., has fewer words) is most certainly not such a reason. Radical change needs radically strong reasons to support it.[/quote:3fvby2nc]

I have answered these arguments in previous posts and will not do so here again.

[quote:3fvby2nc]
First of all, you have still not explained why this is desirable, and why this is better than people being represented by each individual citizen having a single vote on who should be elected to the legislature.

Secondly, this can be achieved (in respect of representatives of local government) with the DPU's senate proposal, without radically overhauling our constitution.

Thirdly, under the commonwealth proposal as suggested above, each member nation will have one or more seats on the Council of the Commonwealth, which each may decide how it fills.[/quote:3fvby2nc]

For someone who is attacking the vagaries of my proposal, you have proposed an even less developed idea for a Commonwealth of Virtual Nations and now act as if it should be taken more seriously than my longer and more thoughtful proposal, which BTW was presented as a proposed act of the RA.

It is desirable for some member governments to have a set number of reps in the Legislature, and decide how they will be chosen. In the examples of government styles A-E above, some may choose the reps based on popular vote in the sim, others may have the Legislature choose the reps, others may have the Executive choose the reps, others may have a test for the most qualified reps, others may have citizens rotate the role of rep. In each of these cases, the results of who would be chosen would be different. It is desirable because it creates options and flexibility that is not a part of the current system.

[quote:3fvby2nc]As many have said before, in order for any system of government in SecondLife to be effective, the [i:3fvby2nc]de jure[/i:3fvby2nc] powers of governments need to be tied as closely as possible to the [i:3fvby2nc]de facto[/i:3fvby2nc] realities of control over assets in SecondLife. We have already been heavily criticised for having our governmental institutions too far from the source of [i:3fvby2nc]de facto[/i:3fvby2nc] power over banning and asset disposal; your proposal would mean that governmental power would be far, far further away still from real power. More than that, instead of the present position of having a largely neutral EO with no governmental functions, what you propose would (seemingly) involve politically-invested EOs, with great incentive to default on their duties to governments if things did not go their way politically. [/quote:3fvby2nc]

Who are the "many" who have said that before? Who has heavily criticized the system in place? As Aliasi has stated quite forcefully, the only real power we have at all is social pressure - seizing land is really, truly, not that big a deal for most people in SL. Ask around.
As for the EO (is that Executive Office?), what do you mean? Give me a hypothetical example of your fears playing out.

[quote:3fvby2nc]I have never claimed that, if a government is not as [i:3fvby2nc]complicated[/i:3fvby2nc] as that of the CDS then it cannot be a government at all: my point was quite simple. It was that, either a nation is truly independent, in which case it can properly be treated as a member state of a commonwealth, and enjoy all the privelidges and independence that such a status gives it, but, to do so, it must have a fully-fledged government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and proper constitutional checks and balances (not necessarily in the same way as we have in the CDS), or a group wants a degree of democratic control over its local area, but to leave the broader policymaking up to a central legislature, to leave braoder policy implimentation to a central executive, and to leave all dispute resolution to a central judiciary. The latter group cannot be expected to be treated as fully independent because it is inherently [i:3fvby2nc]not[/i:3fvby2nc] independent: it depends for its executive and judiciary, and much of its legislature, on the wider government, although exercises some local freedoms. In that case, it would be most dangerous to treat an organisation that is not truly independent as if it was, since that would create a mismatch (as described above) between actual and purported power great enough to give real cause for concern. If people wanted to have partial government models, such as the legislature-only model that you described above, why should they not instead enfranchulate with the CDS? [/quote:3fvby2nc]

What you do not seem to recognize, Ash, is that everyone and every organization within SL is independent already, in ways that are impossible in the real world. It is not dangerous to recognize this and deal with it in a reasonable way.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

I fancy myself as one who notices the quirks of others. Here is the number of times Ash has used these phrases in his postings on this thread and the related one in the Legislative Discussion board:
"Far, far" - 5 times
Always - 15 times
Precisely - 32 times
I started to count the number of times the word "reason" and its variations (reasoned, reasonings, reasons, etc) were used, but I quickly got tired.