[b:24dp3kra][u:24dp3kra]A full reply[/u:24dp3kra][/b:24dp3kra]
I have now returned from holiday and am able to reply fully, as I do below.
[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":24dp3kra][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:24dp3kra]
Why do you assume that inequality, per se, is a problem? Equality is conceptually incapable of being inherently valuable, so it can only be valuable in so far as it is instrumental to the maximisation of some other valuable attribute. Sometimes, equality is very important precisely because it does tend to maximise, above any non-equal arrangement, some or other valuable attribute: in voting, for example, the function that elections inherently seeks to serve is best served when each citizen participating in the elections has an equal number of votes (usually, but not necessarily, 1: each citizen could, for example, be given five votes to distrubute amongst the candidates as he or she pleased).
In this case, however, it is not clear what function that you think that equality of precedence amongst each nation's laws of contract would serve. As you have already explained, equality of precidence would create serious problems, because it would then be very unclear whose contract law would apply to any given contract. In other words, in this case [i:24dp3kra]in[/i:24dp3kra]equality has a distinct benefit in and of itself. It might also be noted that any citizen of one of the lower ranked nations who did not like the idea of somebody else's law of contract applying could always insert a choice of law clause into any contract: after all, what I suggest are only [i:24dp3kra]default rules[/i:24dp3kra].
[quote:24dp3kra]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.[/quote:24dp3kra]
And I have asked you some specific questions about these, not all of which you have answered (most notably, you have not explained what advantage that it really is to have the local government set the way in which legislative representatives are selected, as opposed to having a universal system).
[quote:24dp3kra]They may want to have a different government type (as described by my examples A-E previously)[/quote:24dp3kra]
This does not make sense, since this does not describe an advantage to your proposal over the present system, either with or without a commonwealth according to my model.
Under the present system with local governments as I suggest, the group joining the franchulate would be able to choose its local government, within the limits set by the national government, but not by themselves determine the structure of the national government.
Under the commonwealth, nations, in turn, would be able to set their national government, within the limits set by the commonwealth, but not by themselves determine the structure of the commonwealth itself.
Under the system that you propose, the member states would be able to set their own state government, within the limits set by the commonwealth/confederation, but not by themselves set the structure of the commonwealth/confederation themselves.
What, exactly, is the advantage, in terms of local choice, of your system?
[quote:24dp3kra]may want to have a different setup of land fees[/quote:24dp3kra]
It is possible to have different methods of collecting land fees with a central CDS with local governments with delegated powers. Different land fees collections systems per locality do not entail a different EO per locality. Whether it is desirable to permit different arrangements for collecting land fees locally is another matter entirely (what advantage do you see of this, exactly?), but that, in any case, is a quite separate question than the question of whether to adopt your overall constitutional structure.
[quote:24dp3kra]or allow at-large citizens of their member governments themselves[/quote:24dp3kra]
As I have explained before now a number of times, it is possible to have at-large citizens under the current arrangements. It is, for the reasons that I have already given, extremely undesirable to do so, but the undesirability of them (and all of the arguments about whether they are desirable or not) is not something that in any way depends on whether or not your system is or should be adopted.
[quote:24dp3kra]or have different rules for citizenship altogether[/quote:24dp3kra]
Again, this is technically possible under the current arrangements with local governments, with some minor constitutional revision, although it is undesirable (and equally undesirable whether your system is adopted or not) for all the reasons already given on at-large citizens and the importance of tying citizenship to landholdings.
[quote:24dp3kra]or want to set their own election timetables[/quote:24dp3kra]
Under the current system with local governments, nothing would stop local governments setting their own local election timetables - indeed, it would be rather absurd if the national government were to step in every time that there was a local election.
If you mean that you want elections to the [i:24dp3kra]central[/i:24dp3kra] body at [i:24dp3kra]different times[/i:24dp3kra] in different localities, then that is utterly insane: even in the European Union, members of the European Parliament are all elected at the same time. Can you imagine the political disintegration that might occur if there were, in effect, constant, rolling elections for what you proopse to be an important legislature? What of political stability? What of preventing apathy? Political factions would have to be campaigning near constantly just to keep themselves ahead of all the multitude of local/national elections. What conceivable benefit do you imagine that this arrangement could have?
[quote:24dp3kra]or because they find Nstadt's structure confusing or overwhelming[/quote:24dp3kra]
If people find our structure confusing or overwhelming, they should take more time to study it. If the complexity that we have is not redundant, i.e., if all the parts of the complexity that we have each serve functions that need to be served, then the complexity is necessary, and no criticism of it can be made. If there are parts of our constitution that are redundant, then the criticism of them is not that they are complex, but that they are redundant. However, if there are redundant parts to our constitution, then the answer is to excise them, not to abandon the constitution entirely (or relegate it to the practical insignificance of being in effect a local town council).
[quote:24dp3kra]or simply because they don't want to hand over land they already own to another person.[/quote:24dp3kra]
People cannot expect to have the benefits of living in a civil society without also the duties and responsibilities. If a person joins an organisation whose purpose is to enable there to be enforcable rules by which people live in harmony, and, therefore, expects those rules to be enforced in that person's favour against any person who may seek to transgress those rules against that person's interests, then that person must similarly be prepared to face the consequences if he or she so transgresses. In any case, this point is merely a duplicate of the argument about citizens at large, which can be achieved under our present arrangements with a relatively minor alteration to the constitution, not a distinct argument in favour of the radically new model that you propose.
In summary, none of the things that you have outlined as benefits of your system actually need your system, as opposed to what we already have, to achieve them, and many of them are not beneficial things at all in any event.
[quote:24dp3kra]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:24dp3kra]
I am not aware that we have started the process of accepting franchulates yet. However, I understand from Gwyn that there are alredy two distinct groups who have expressed a strong interest in enfranchulating with us. Furthermore, when I spoke with Chili Carson, the leader of the SecondLife Chamber of Commerce that is in the process of being established on the matter, she said that she would definitely be interested in the idea of being a franchulate.
[quote:24dp3kra]I have answered these arguments in previous posts and will not do so here again.[/quote:24dp3kra]
Can you point me to where you have answered the specific point about (1) the complexity of the sources of law being distinct from the complexity of the practical application of the laws resulting therefrom; and (2) the distinction between the general argument for simplicity (which would equally be an argument for abolishing our present constitution entirely, rather than relegating it to being the government of a town council, where its complexity, as an organisation designed to run a national government, genuinely would become redundant), and the argument for adopting your model in particular (which, as Gwyn pointed out at the CSDF meeting, would make things a great deal [i:24dp3kra]more[/i:24dp3kra] complicated)?
[quote:24dp3kra]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.[/quote:24dp3kra]
The idea that I have proposed is, for the reasons that I have explained, conceptually preferable to what I am afraid is a rather muddled idea that you have put forward. It is preferable in overall design before we even get to considering detail. I am not, however, even convinced that any sort of commonwealth is genuinely necessary, since there is currently only one nation that would be eligible to join it, and I most certainly do not see the point of a one-member commonwealth. The best way to spread democracy in SecondLife is by expanding the CDS as much as possible through enfranchulation. If there really was a serious demand for an international organisation, then the commonwealth that I suggested would be preferable to an unworkable fudge between a national government and international club of governments that I am afraid that your proposal really is. Once, and only once, it has been established that there is a significant general demand for such an organisation (in the sense of there being serious organisations of non-trivial numbers that are or are in the process of becoming democratic nations who seriously want to be a part of such a commonwealth), then, and only then, will it be worth working on the details.
[quote:24dp3kra]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:24dp3kra]
The mere fact that something creates options and flexibility cannot by itself make a thing desirable: extra options can only be desirable if the particular people who have the options having those particular options is in itself desirable. Giving individual citizens the option, for example, to disband the CDS unilaterally, or take over everybody else's land, or to make her or himself the emporer of the CDS adds flexibility and options, but is not good because the options that it adds are bad options. Therefore, you have not given something that genuinely counts as a reason to have different methods of selecting national representatives in each locality because you have failed to say why giving localities that particular option would be a good, rather than a bad (or, indeed, neutral), thing.
[quote:24dp3kra]Who are the "many" who have said that before? Who has heavily criticized the system in place?[/quote:24dp3kra]
See [url=http://forums.slhomepage.com/showthread ... 6:24dp3kra]this thread[/url:24dp3kra].
[quote:24dp3kra]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.[/quote:24dp3kra]
If the ability to seize land is not a big deal, why would it be an advantage to have at-large citizens? Surely the whole idea of at-large citizens is to attract people to citizenship who would not otherwise want to be citizens because they would not want the possibility of having their land seized. That very argument, however, that you expressly made yourself above, is an argument in favour of the superior power of land-seizure enforcement, and therefore against the thing that it purports to be an argument in favour of.
[quote:24dp3kra]As for the EO (is that Executive Office?), what do you mean? Give me a hypothetical example of your fears playing out.[/quote:24dp3kra]
"EO" is an estate owner. The point is this: if local governments were to hold their own land directly from LL, then the commonwealth as you envisage it would be no more than a club from which we could eject people if they do not do what they are oblidged to do. Our powers of enforcement would effectively be limited to removing a name of a group from a list on a website, which would be virtually worthless, as then, in turn, would the whole commonwealth be.
An example: suppose AB & Co. wanted to join the CDS. Suppose that they are a commercial entity, with their own land, and a number of different businesspeople who make up different parts of the organisation. Suppose under your model, they were to make themselves into a democracy by creating a legislature with local elections, limit those who may join their community by requiring that they be involved in the same business, and became a member state. Suppose that it did so because its directors realised that it had nothing to lose by doing so: if all goes well, then it stays in the commonwealth for ever, and potentially gains more trade by doing so. If anything goes against it, it has nothing to lose because the commonwealth can't take its land away: it can only revert it to the same position as it was in before it joined. It writes off what is for it the wholly trivial amount that it pays for the bond as an advertising expense. The commonwealth holds itself out as being able to enforce its rules against all who are members of it. A dissatisfied customer brings an action in the commonwealth courts against AB & Co., and wins. AB & Co. refuse to pay. The commonwealth can do nothing to help the dissatisfied customer. AB & Co. is ejected from the commonwealth, and continues trading as if nothing had happened, possibly with a few extra customers gained because of commonwealth membership who neither know nor care about the dissatisfied customer's case. The commonwealth would have been proven impotent. Its purported powers would be utterly irrelevant to the realities of the situation. It would not take long for people to realise this, and to ignore the commonwealth, which would then fall into disuse, and democracy would be no more than a distant memory or hope for the bulk of SecondLife users.
The ultimate question is: what is the point of us having laws unless we can truly [i:24dp3kra]enforce[/i:24dp3kra] them, i.e. make people abide by them whether they want to or not, and, if they do not, do something severely detrimental to th0se people? A democracy is worthless without the rule of law, and the rule of law is impossible without truly effective enforcement.
[quote:24dp3kra]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.[/quote:24dp3kra]
You have not addressed the point. The point was that something cannot sensibly be treated as [i:24dp3kra]an independent [u:24dp3kra]nation[/u:24dp3kra][/i:24dp3kra] unless it has all the characteristics of an independent [u:24dp3kra]nation[/u:24dp3kra]. That means not that people or groups do not depend on other people or groups to carry out the functions that they always carried out before they became a nation, but that the nation, [i:24dp3kra]qua[/i:24dp3kra] nation, does not depend on external governmental infrastucture to make it function as a nation. A "nation" that had a legislature but no executive or judiciary would necessarily depend on another structure (the commonwealth) in order for it to be a complete nation, as a nation by definition is, [i:24dp3kra]inter alia[/i:24dp3kra], an institution comprising at least a legislature, executive and judiciary. That some groups, not being nations, can be independent in SecondLife in novel (but unspecified) ways does not go any way towards addressing the point about the independence of nations [i:24dp3kra]in their capacity as nations[/i:24dp3kra], which is the point to which the above purports to be a response.
