On civil soceity

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[b:2vjga8wn][u:2vjga8wn]On civil soceity[/b:2vjga8wn][/u:2vjga8wn]

Why are we here? What are we doing participating in a democratic government in SecondLife? How do we measure whether we have succeeded in doing what we are trying to achieve? What is it about the way that we do things here in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators that is better than the way that they do things in, say, Caledon, or Dreamland, that is worth so much of our time to make work?

There is not, as no doubt all will agree, a singular goal, but a set of different goals (enforcable contracts, social harmony, governmental experimentation, citizen input into control mechanisms, theme maintenance, etc.). However, those are not a jumble of unrelated goals: they all have a central underpinning theme, a sort of meta-goal that underpins what the CDS is for, and has always underpinned, as far as I can make out, what all of its predecessors, (the city state of Neufreistadt, and Neualtenburg in all of its various incarnations) were about: carving out a true civil soceity, in which the principles of community spirit, democratic participation in decisionmaking and the rule of law stand together to promote the interests of all, and do so in ways that either a loose and informal association of people, or an autocratic, heirachical structure cannot. We aim, do we not, to create in SecondLife a functioning democratic, rule-governed, law-abiding community as a viable alternative way for people to live their SecondLives to the anarchic bulk of SecondLife. Our message to outsiders is, is it not, "if you want law and order, democracy, and a strong community spirit, join us".

Not everybody will want that, of course, but the beauty of SecondLife in general (and our system in particular) is that one can participate in SecondLife in many different ways, and, by joining one of the burgeoning number of communities, choose between a vast and sometimes bewildering array of different options as to how to participate in SecondLife. We add a new distinct possibility: non-roleplay rule governed democratic soceity. Unlike many of the other communities in SecondLife that are governed by rules (the goreans, the JAG Alliance Navy, Starfleet, even Caledon), we do it, not as part of some elaborate role-playing game, where people must get into some sort of special theme, and [i:2vjga8wn]pretend[/i:2vjga8wn] to be in a navy, or a character in Star Trek, or a Victorian English gentleman, but because we believe that being a rule-governed soceity is, for many people, at least, and for many activities at least (perhaps most notably including, but by no means limited to, commerce) is intrinsically better for doing [i:2vjga8wn]whatever[/i:2vjga8wn] one chooses to do, just like in real life, and that people can have all of those benefits without pretending anything in particular if they do not want.

Now that we are expanding with franchulates, our message can be broader than our traditional, "if you want to live in a community governed democratically in which law and order is maintained, come and be a citizen in Neufreistadt": we can now also say, "If you want to come and do business with people who live in a community governed by law and order, come and do business in the CDS", "If you want law and order and a strong community on your own land, join the CDS with that land", and "If you want to reassure your business customers that you are true to your word, join our law-abiding community". Enforcable contracts are a big part of that.

However, in all the excitement about the new things that we can offer, and the new ways that we can benefit people, we should not forget that those new things, enforcable contracts, good business relations, bringing our vision of an ordered and democratic soceity to those parts of the mainland that want it, are in addition to, rather than instead of, our fundamental aims of creating a true civil soceity, in which the principles of community spirit, democratic participation in decisionmaking and the rule of law stand together to promote the interests of all. Just because we add grid-wide enforcable contracts to our armoury of reasons to be part of the CDS, for example, does not mean by any measure that we should pursue policies that turn us into a contract-enforcing club, and forget the other, ultimately more fundamental and important, aim of a true civil soceity, in which the principles of community spirit, democratic participation in decisionmaking and the rule of law stand together to promote the interests of all. Nor even should we, with the recent excitement about the judiciary and franchulates and the combined power of the two, forget the equally important aim of creating a community spirit, and it is with that that I especially welcome Pat's recent renewed focus on promoting events (a murder mystery, I think, was his latest idea), as well as dealing with constitutional issues. Getting the games in Colonia Nova running should also be a boon to this. With franchulates, we can also organise a programme of franchulate-wide events, in conjunction with the local administrations/landowners there, to promote our community spirit accross the wider echalons of the mainland that we hope soon to annexe.

In building our civil soceity, we must be mindful of building it in a way that lasts, and is not prone to disintegrate. In particular, we must construct our governmental and social institutions in a way that promote unity over disunity, stability over instability, and that enable, when needs must, our government to have truly effective means of enforcing our laws against rogue citizens, or those who are involved in otherwise intractable disputes. Without stability, we are prone to disintegration, either by a failure of our central mechanisms, or by fractionation. Either would hamper our goal to create a true civil soceity in which the principles of community spirit, democratic participation in decisionmaking and the rule of law stand together to promote the interests of all. Disunity would break apart our community spirit, instability would undermine our democratic values, and lack of enforcability would render our law impotant and unable effectively to rule. Because of their importance to our ultimate goals, I will post separately on stability and on enforcability in due course. However, there can be little doubt that a united, stable, secure CDS, in which the rule of law prevails, with adequate enforcement mechanisms, is far more condusive to the goals of a civil soceity than a fractionated CDS, or an unstable CDS, or one in which there is no effective way of enforcing our laws. To work effectively, we need to be strong, resolute, and able to inspire confidence in outsiders. Only a combination of unity, stability and the effective rule of law stands any real chance of achieving that.

[Tad Peckham]

am i the only one confused here? i think we all want to live in a civil society, but we are only as free as the second life ToS allows us to be. moreover, we are a village of 49 people, not all of whom are active, not a nation of thousands. i fail to see why we need complexity when i have little doubt that a 'town hall' style government would suffice for our civil society.

i just don't see the need for complex systems when the cds is so small and there is no data to suggest that we can expect rapid growth.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Tad Peckham":3t9m23n3]am i the only one confused here? i think we all want to live in a civil society, but we are only as free as the second life ToS allows us to be.[/quote:3t9m23n3]

What have I written that suggests otherwise? What about a civil soceity conflicts with the SecondLife Terms of Service? If nothing, what is the relevance of this remark?

[quote:3t9m23n3]moreover, we are a village of 49 people, not all of whom are active, not a nation of thousands. i fail to see why we need complexity when i have little doubt that a 'town hall' style government would suffice for our civil society. i just don't see the need for complex systems when the cds is so small and there is no data to suggest that we can expect rapid growth.[/quote:3t9m23n3]

You merely blandly assert, yet fail to support with reasoning, the proposition that the number of citizens is the determining factor in how complex that a government should be. Why do you think that the number of citizens, rather than, for example, the number of functions that the government performs multiplied by the relative imprortance of those functions, is the determining factor? Moreover, upon what basis do you assert that the particular present level of complexity is excess? For something to be excess, the particular quantity of it must have particular detrimental effects. Can you identify any? If not, upon what conceivable basis can you claim that there is any such problem with our system?

In any event, what exactly does this have to do with what I posted above, where I was extolling the virtues of stability, unity, community spirit, the rule of law and enforcability?

[Fernando Book]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":w7ji0aml]

There is not, as no doubt all will agree, a singular goal, but a set of different goals (enforcable contracts, social harmony, governmental experimentation, citizen input into control mechanisms, theme maintenance, etc.). However, those are not a jumble of unrelated goals: they all have a central underpinning theme, a sort of meta-goal (...): carving out a true civil soceity, in which the principles of community spirit, democratic participation in decisionmaking and the rule of law stand together to promote the interests of all, and do so in ways that either a loose and informal association of people, or an autocratic, heirachical structure cannot. [/quote:w7ji0aml]

Yes Ashcroft, but, why are we doing it for?

I mean, we are writing from schratch (well, no, from the Linden ToS; it is not our Government, but our very Nature) our social contract, but we have a State that has no definite goal.
I don't want to open a debate on the social contract, but the fact is that now we expect that our (real) State provide some services to us: health, education, safety... The list can be longer or shorter, depending on our own political culture, but we can summarize it in the Four Freedoms address by F.D. Roosevelt: freedom to speech and worship (and, by extension, political freedom and related rights), freedom from want and freedom from fear.
But our problem is that SL doesn't work that way: our rights are guaranteed (or limited in a way we can't alter), we have no necessity, and we are fearless.
You say that we are legislating to create a civil society. Perhaps, but I don't know what I need a civil society for. I mean, we are not a sim full of artists that have the goal to set up the MoCA and legislate ot achieve it.
This is a sim (or several ones) about democracy, and we show it in legislation.
It's fun, it's very interesting, but sometimes I think it's a bit useless.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

I was going to start a new thread, but it seems this post might fit under this thread. Ashcroft referred in one of his lengthy diatribes to a [url=http://forums.slhomepage.com/showthread ... 6:luwxkldr]forum posting[/url:luwxkldr] purporting to show that our current system is already too far from real power, in one of his arguments that judgments needed to be tied to land. What I found when I followed the link was a treasure trove of raw opinions about the current CDS, and democracy in SL generally. As a point of reference, the thread started when Ash explained the new judicial system of the CDS. I post some of the responses here to spur discussion on our likelihood of growth under the current system, given these common sentiments:

“This is one landowner who will definitely not be joining this strong-armed fake "democracy".
Um, how wide was the support? I think there were...30 people? Or was it 42?
No, I will not be joining the Confabulation of Simulated Democracy.” Prokofy Neva

“So if someone does something against your laws they can pay you to not lose their land..... On the landowner (well really renter)'s side that's called bribery and on your side that's called extortion.
The person who wrote this is a lawyer?
Under these guideline's I'm afraid I'd have to side with Prokofy on this one... good luck, but no thank you.” AllanaDion

“Confederation of Democratic Simulators.
Sorry thats a misnomer.
Try fascisct dictatorship.
Ill exercise my democratic right to say no thanks.” Lucipher Baphomet

“- Anonymity is an issue.
- Transparency is an issue.
- People voting with feet (walking in, walking away) is an issue.
In first life, I do agree that certain forms of democracy are the lesser evil. But the metaverse, and especially the Second Life grid, isn't ready for it.” Desmond Shang

“It has been my impression that the most universally galling problems in our "hiterto unruly world" are primarily issues of anti-social behaviors or questionable business practices. Such problems are largely unaffected by tactics such as banning ("gentlemen, start your alts!"), which seems to be the predominant legal tool for this type of poltical/administrative construct…And frankly, that bit about the "hitherto unruly world" makes me a bit nervous--why do I suspect that's not so much about stopping freebie re-sellers and griefgoobers, as it is about placing controls on things like builds that someone decides are "ugly" or alternate lifestyle choices, eliminating non-conformist avatar designs, bringing gadflies to heel, or keeping charming lady inventors from experimenting with blowingshitup.
I rather think many of the unruly aspects of our world are its most desirable features. Those unruly apects that do need to be mitigated have to be brought under control through policy decisions and practical changes to the platfrom carried out by LL, rather than a potentially coercive social entity created by other residents.” Aldo

“Dude, did you just say "franchulated" with a straight face?
Seriously, though, why would anyone be interested? You give up a lot of rights to property you pay for on a monthly basis and get what back in return? The right to vote and run in popularity contests?
Well, if that's what you wanna do, go do. But this version of SL government sounds as good to me as all previous forms. Thanks but no thanks.” Lorelei

“There would be zero incentive for a non-citizen to use this system, which is a minor problem from the start.
As for the citizen government, half of the people involved in disputes will not be satisfied with the results. Naturally, this will result in the type of grinding drama that most groups with any asset management behaviour have.
It will be a challege, at the least, to spin this enough to keep the system running smoothly.” Gabe Lipman

“[Ashcroft] refuses to acknowledge the real inherent problem of the sim ownership of Sudane Erato as propping up the entire ball of wax -- however benign and enlightened she may be, all the Nbergers are merely tenants of hers; she is the tenant of record with Governor Linden, so to speak…
I don't wish to be in confederations with people who do things with haste, in sects and grouplets and without even hardly advertising their activities. You don't start a grid-wide ambitious political movement without more accountability and input.” Prokofy Neva

“On to the court idea, if it was run like one of those TV show courts, where both parties agree to the terms of the court, it might work. But let's say they agreed, then after losing, rescinded their agreement. There is no mechanism for stopping that. In my mind, it would only work if both parties left funds or objects or land with the court, so they couldn't opt out of a decision. Some might abide by this, although personally I would never wish to be involved in it.” Jeremiah North

“Take a look at the Gor sims, each one of it a little government unto its own. They're a mess! Good luck finding one with more than a half-year of stability. You'll find a lot more people quitting and taking their toys with them, and maybe along the way hitting the "auto return" button just to make life interesting.
It's quite like all the little splinter communist groups that were around back when I was in college. One group would form, draft its bylaws and what-not, and inevitably politics got involved and there was a split, and now you have two groups, each trying to discredit the other, and then those two groups fracture, and on down the line.
Interestingly, the same thing happens on the right, too, and that's why there's no one KKK, but dozens of little KKKs, each boasting maybe 8 members, each one fracturing when one of those 8 thinks he's a better bigot than the rest.
It's just the way we people are.
I understand it's an opt-in system. I understand you're not trying to take over the grid. I just predict it'll be an exercise in futility.” Lorelei

“The reason landlords are trusted is clear, mutual self interest. It would be ridiculous to do all the work of setting up sims, merely to skip out with the month's till.
It is far *more* of a stretch for folks to trust the character, financial acumen and just plain decency of those who aspire for political office in a metaverse government.
Just as in a bad homeowner's association, sooner or later mad Aunt Bea is going to get elected to the Treasury and drink the roof repair money.” Desmond Shang

“All you want to do is hurry to impress the Lindens - that's all, so that they can cite you in their own efforts to hurry governance and wash their hands of this burden. It's not accountable. It has no buy-in. The opt-out isn't clear. And the ambitions to spread all over the grid, and seize people's property along the way, are just awful and I hope they get the most resolution rebuff.” Prokofy Neva

“But honestly I still don't see the good side to joining up with this system. What would I, as the owner of Midnight City, stand to gain by joining up with you guys?
The unified ban list isn't a terrible idea, but I wouldn't want it to be compulsory. A shared list of potential griefers would be a great idea, as long as I can examine the list and decide for myself if I should ban the individuals or not.
Reputability for business owners who are a part of your project isn't a bad plan, but that's a boon that won't be ripe for a long time. You guys need to visibily demonstrate low-drama stability and fairness over the long term before businesses will be able to enjoy the benefits of your publically perceived reputation. You may be off to a rough start given the nature of the split with Neualtenberg (regardless of who was at fault.)
The downsides, on the other hand, are rather unpalatable, especially the loss of autonomy and the potential loss of land.
But if I'm missing the mark, correct me. What benefits would I enjoy after I offered Midnight City to this project?” Aimee Weber

“Enough has been said already about the reasons why, but count me as among those who have no interest in this whatsoever.” Alex Fitzsimmons

“What you are proposing isn't democracy.
Dictatorships have mock votes in rubber stamp parliaments all the time! But the real power is held close. Just like the land assets in your system.” Desmond Shang

“After reading all your explanations I am still not convinced this can work out. The real world game mechanics don't look to tie in closely enough with the ideals. That said, good luck with it!” Tancread Oates

[Ashcroft Burnham]

Gxeremio, I note that you systematically omit all of my careful replies. Why is that?

And could you also explain, please, what this has to do with the topic of the tread, civil soceity?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Fernando Book":ngu3dmin]Yes Ashcroft, but, why are we doing it for?[/quote:ngu3dmin]

As I stated above, "to promote the interests of all". What more of a reason to do anything can there be than that? If you do not think that we really do promote the interests of all, then that is another thing entirely, but that is not the point that you are making here.

[quote:ngu3dmin]I mean, we are writing from schratch (well, no, from the Linden ToS; it is not our Government, but our very Nature) our social contract, but we have a State that has no definite goal.
I don't want to open a debate on the social contract, but the fact is that now we expect that our (real) State provide some services to us: health, education, safety...[/quote:ngu3dmin]

States existed for many thousands of years before anybody ever thought of having states do any of these things. Why do you not consider the rule of law enough justification for the existence of state machinary?

[quote:ngu3dmin]The list can be longer or shorter, depending on our own political culture, but we can summarize it in the Four Freedoms address by F.D. Roosevelt: freedom to speech and worship (and, by extension, political freedom and related rights), freedom from want and freedom from fear.[/quote:ngu3dmin]

Why should that be the summary? Why can the benefits of civil soceity not include a strong community? Why can the benefits of the rule of law not include freedom from harassment or fraud or the ability to trust that others will be made to keep to their solenm promises, or the right not to be ejected from a group and lose one's assets in that group without a fair trial?

[quote:ngu3dmin]But our problem is that SL doesn't work that way: our rights are guaranteed (or limited in a way we can't alter), we have no necessity, and we are fearless.[/quote:ngu3dmin]

That is not true. The computer code most certainly does not render irrelevant the operation of law. It cannot detect fraud or harassment or breach of contract or unjustified expropriation of land. Only a legal system operated by humans can reliably do that.

[quote:ngu3dmin]You say that we are legislating to create a civil society. Perhaps, but I don't know what I need a civil society for. I mean, we are not a sim full of artists that have the goal to set up the MoCA and legislate ot achieve it.[/quote:ngu3dmin]

We are a sim full of people with lots of diverse but mostly compatible aims, at least most of which are better acheived in a soceity in which the rule of law prevails than in one in which it does not. Enforcability of contracts alone is a huge advantage, but, as explained above, there is far more to it than that.

[quote:ngu3dmin]This is a sim (or several ones) about democracy, and we show it in legislation.[/quote:ngu3dmin]

We are not [i:ngu3dmin]about[/i:ngu3dmin] democracy, any more than the US or UK are countries [i:ngu3dmin]about[/i:ngu3dmin] democracy. We are democratic not because we want to be democratic for the sake of it, or play democratic games, but because we believe that being democratic helps us to achieve the other things that we want to achieve (education, art, culture, community) better than being anarchic or autocratic.

[quote:ngu3dmin]It's fun, it's very interesting, but sometimes I think it's a bit useless.[/quote:ngu3dmin]

Then why did you join in the first place?

[Tad Peckham]

[quote:2gfzcwic]What have I written that suggests otherwise? What about a civil soceity conflicts with the SecondLife Terms of Service? If nothing, what is the relevance of this remark? [/quote:2gfzcwic]

i never said it would conflict. what i said was that ALL sl users are bound by nothing more than the ToS. in other words, with all sl users having the ability to travel between any region they desire, it is hard to hold them accountable to any code of conduct that goes above and beyond the ToS.

[quote:2gfzcwic]You merely blandly assert, yet fail to support with reasoning, the proposition that the number of citizens is the determining factor in how complex that a government should be.[/quote:2gfzcwic]

how can you honestly tell me a community of 49 people that contains 16-23 government jobs dealing with policy making and implementation is not overkill? when half the citizens have government jobs, how do the citizens have a voice? moreover, i don't think that doing a simple math calculation is a bland assertion on my part. i cannot think of any other community of this size that feels the need for such complexity. i would suggest that you are the one who is blandly asserting that the cds is going to expand. where is the proof of that ashcroft?

second life now has over 1 million citizens. only 49 of those million people have elected to live in a democratic sim. second life is growing at a rate of over 10 thousands citizens per-day, and very few of them are joining our sim. i believe, based mostly upon those stats, that people are more interested in the 'utopia' aspect of second life, and not our virtual democracy. i do not believe that the cds is bound for rapid expansion because most people are not here for democracy. do not get me wrong: i am glad there are 49 of us who want to build a democracy, i just do not think we need a complex system, or complex functions with so few people.

[quote:2gfzcwic]In any event, what exactly does this have to do with what I posted above, where I was extolling the virtues of stability, unity, community spirit, the rule of law and enforcability?[/quote:2gfzcwic]

just because you started a new thread does not mean you are not addressing and campaigning for some of the same issues you are continually posting about. we all know what you mean by stability, unity, and the rule of law: a complex government for a village of 49 people. as for community spirit, i did not address that issue because i think you made good points, and i agree with most of them.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1oi066hc]
We are not [i:1oi066hc]about[/i:1oi066hc] democracy, any more than the US or UK are countries [i:1oi066hc]about[/i:1oi066hc] democracy. We are democratic not because we want to be democratic for the sake of it, or play democratic games, but because we believe that being democratic helps us to achieve the other things that we want to achieve (education, art, culture, community) better than being anarchic or autocratic.
[/quote:1oi066hc]

Yes and no, Ashcroft. allow me to quote from the "Introduction to Neufreistadt" notecard, which was itself copied from the old Neualtenburg website (and is repeated on the wiki):

[quote:1oi066hc]Overview and Philosophy
Neufreistadt is a nonprofit cooperative and self-governed community whose purpose is to:

* enable group ownership of high-quality public, private, and open-space land;
* create a themed yet expressive community of public and private builds;
* and implement novel democratic forms of self government within Second Life.

The city is modeled after a medieval Bavarian city with postmodern architectural elements in the private sim of Neufreistadt. Most of SL is based upon the precepts of modern architecture, where land and buildings are dominated by the rectangle. One of the goals of this project is to create a city which replaces orthogonality with organic and brings together the medieval and modern.[/quote:1oi066hc]

In a sense, we [i:1oi066hc]are[/i:1oi066hc] about democracy, although I agree this is in large part because we believe that it is a useful component to the other two. But Neualtenburg, then Neufreistadt, and now the CDS, are still very much an experiment in progress.

I'm not overly worried about the forum postings; just as on the old LL forums, the set of forum-goers and the set of usefully productive SL users are mostly mutually exclusive.

[Fernando Book]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":142nxmm8][quote="Fernando Book":142nxmm8](...)the fact is that now we expect that our (real) State provide some services to us: health, education, safety...[/quote:142nxmm8]
States existed for many thousands of years before anybody ever thought of having states do any of these things. Why do you not consider the rule of law enough justification for the existence of state machinary?[/quote:142nxmm8]
Perhaps there was no political thinking about the State as a service provider, but the State (or the tribe, or the town) do provided some services, from safety (maybe the first one), to what we call today social or economic services (wheat distribution in Rome or Athens, etc.).
The rule of law is not a guarantee of democracy. In Spain we had a forty-years dictatorship based, most of its time, in the rule of law.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":142nxmm8]Why can the benefits of the rule of law not include freedom from harassment or fraud or the ability to trust that others will be made to keep to their solenm promises, or the right not to be ejected from a group and lose one's assets in that group without a fair trial? [/quote:142nxmm8]
Every item falls under FDR's freedom from fear.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":142nxmm8][quote="Fernando Book":142nxmm8]Quote:
But our problem is that SL doesn't work that way: our rights are guaranteed (or limited in a way we can't alter), we have no necessity, and we are fearless.[/quote:142nxmm8]
That is not true. The computer code most certainly does not render irrelevant the operation of law. It cannot detect fraud or harassment or breach of contract or unjustified expropriation of land. Only a legal system operated by humans can reliably do that. [/quote:142nxmm8]
'That is not true' is not an answer. And you haven't addressed my concerns (that had nothing to do with computer code): we can't modify anyone rights, we have no necessity (unless you are a compulsive consumer), and we have no fear (a griefer is only a few minutes of discomfort; a grid wide griefing attack is an FBI question).
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":142nxmm8]We are a sim full of people with lots of diverse but mostly compatible aims, at least most of which are better acheived in a soceity in which the rule of law prevails than in one in which it does not.[/quote:142nxmm8]
You may be right, and in general I agree with this point, but we haven't proved it yet. And I'm afraid we are not legislating to achieve any aim.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":142nxmm8][quote="Fernando Book":142nxmm8]This is a sim (or several ones) about democracy, and we show it in legislation.[/quote:142nxmm8]
We are not [i:142nxmm8]about [/i:142nxmm8]democracy, any more than the US or UK are countries [i:142nxmm8]about [/i:142nxmm8]democracy. We are democratic not because we want to be democratic for the sake of it, or play democratic games, but because we believe that being democratic helps us to achieve the other things that we want to achieve (education, art, culture, community) better than being anarchic or autocratic. [/quote:142nxmm8]
OK, but we have to prove it. How? I don't know, but we can look at our number of citizens, economic growth, territorial expansion, number of franchulates, number of contracts, number of events, use of our venues, traffic in our sims, number of pupils in our schools, cityzenry satisfaction... Perhaps none of this items is valid, but we should have some objective parameters we can look at to check if we are succeeding or failing. And to show the SL world that democracy is worth the effort.
[quote="Ashcroft Burham":142nxmm8]
[quote="Fernando Book":142nxmm8]It's fun, it's very interesting, but sometimes I think it's a bit useless.
[/quote:142nxmm8]
Then why did you join in the first place?[/quote:142nxmm8]
Because it's fun, it's very interesting, I like debates, I like politics, I have some free time, I like useless things...
But the problem, Ashcroft, is that your question is the kind of question you make to an unwanted visitor in a party. Is this your party?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Tad Peckham":2zbip7nb]i never said it would conflict. what i said was that ALL sl users are bound by nothing more than the ToS. in other words, with all sl users having the ability to travel between any region they desire, it is hard to hold them accountable to any code of conduct that goes above and beyond the ToS. [/quote:2zbip7nb]

As you well know, I have dealt with enforcement before. Why have you ignored all of what I have written on the subject, and merely asserted, without addressing what I have written on that subject, that it is "hard to hold [people] accountable"?

[quote:2zbip7nb]Yhow can you honestly tell me a community of 49 people that contains 16-23 government jobs dealing with policy making and
implementation is not overkill?[/quote:2zbip7nb]

Do you even [i:2zbip7nb]understand[/i:2zbip7nb] the point that I was making above? You are [i:2zbip7nb]again[/i:2zbip7nb] merely asserting, without justifying with reasons, that the number of people governed, rather than the function and importance of the government, should be the determining factor in the complexity of government. Why do you claim this? Are you capable of supporting it with reasons? If not, how can you honestly and properly continually make posts in which that assertion is the basis for what you claim?

[quote:2zbip7nb]when half the citizens have government jobs, how do the citizens have a voice?[/quote:2zbip7nb]

I have dealt with the absurdity of this argument in another thread before. You have entirely ignored what I wrote in response to this, and yet blankly repeated your original assertion here. Why did you ignore what I had written, and act as if I had not responded to your point?

[quote:2zbip7nb]moreover, i don't think that doing a simple math calculation is a bland assertion on my part.[/quote:2zbip7nb]

It is the [i:2zbip7nb]relevance[/i:2zbip7nb] of the calculation that you are making unreasoned assertions about.

[quote:2zbip7nb]i cannot think of any other community of this size that feels the need for such complexity.[/quote:2zbip7nb]

[i:2zbip7nb]Argumentum ad populam[/i:2zbip7nb] is fallacious, as well you should know.

[quote:2zbip7nb] i would suggest that you are the one who is blandly asserting that the cds is going to expand. where is the proof of that ashcroft?[/quote:2zbip7nb]

Find where I have unqualifiedly asserted that the CDS will expand.

[quote:2zbip7nb]second life now has over 1 million citizens. only 49 of those million people have elected to live in a democratic sim. second life is growing at a rate of over 10 thousands citizens per-day, and very few of them are joining our sim. i believe, based mostly upon those stats, that people are more interested in the 'utopia' aspect of second life, and not our virtual democracy.[/quote:2zbip7nb]

Do you have any evidence about [i:2zbip7nb]why[/i:2zbip7nb] people are not joining the CDS, or is it just guesswork? If you cannot exclude other reasons, such as lack of publicity, not liking the theme in Neufreistadt, not thinking that an island sim has enough traffic for her or his business, not being able to afford to pay for land at all, already having too many commitments to acquire land, and (before the group enhancements a few months ago) the laboriousness of the task of acquiring land, then you cannot honestly claim that a different reason is [i:2zbip7nb]the[/i:2zbip7nb] reason that more people have not yet joined us.

[quote:2zbip7nb]i do not believe that the cds is bound for rapid expansion because most people are not here for democracy.[/quote:2zbip7nb]

It only takes a tiny proportion of the SL population to want to join us for us to be able to expand very rapidly indeed: a tiny proportion of the 452,861 who logged in within the last 60 days is still a very large number indeed.

[quote:2zbip7nb]do not get me wrong: i am glad there are 49 of us who want to build a democracy, i just do not think we need a complex system, or complex functions with so few people. [/quote:2zbip7nb]

Why do you think that the number of people have anything to do with it?

[quote:2zbip7nb]just because you started a new thread does not mean you are not addressing and campaigning for some of the same issues you are continually posting about. we all know what you mean by stability, unity, and the rule of law: a complex government for a village of 49 people.[/quote:2zbip7nb]

This is not a proper means of addressing what I posted: I did not mention complexity above. If you do not believe that stability, unity and the rule of law entails complexity, then your point is utterly irrelevant to what I wrote above, and it was wholly wrong for you to have posted it here. If you do accept that stability, unity and the rule of law entails complexity, then, either you disagree that we should have stability, unity and the rule of law, or you accept that we must have complexity. In the former case, you would need to set out reasons [i:2zbip7nb]why[/i:2zbip7nb], exactly, stability, unity and the rule of law are not desirable characteristics. If you cannot do that, then how can you honestly claim that you are opposed to what they entail?

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Fernando Book":2ovlddh2]
'That is not true' is not an answer. And you haven't addressed my concerns (that had nothing to do with computer code): we can't modify anyone rights, we have no necessity (unless you are a compulsive consumer), and we have no fear (a griefer is only a few minutes of discomfort; a grid wide griefing attack is an FBI question).[/quote:2ovlddh2]

This is so. I personally have seen the government's role as thus:

* Covenant enforcement. Because part of the reason for our existence is to live in a nice, themed sim that isn't as crapped-up as the mainland.

* Contract enforcement. While there is RL law a-plenty, having a de-facto business law in SL is useful for reasons that have otherwise been described.

* "Invigorator". That is, our government gives a way to help focus and organize various events in the community.

... and that is just about it. As Fernando so ably points out, there's not a whole lot else we [i:2ovlddh2]need[/i:2ovlddh2] to do. It's why I quit grumbling over the Judicary Act (we need something, and we can always modify as needed!) but have gnashed my teeth over other, far more trivial things... because they are trivial things the city has no business doing.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":2h7a7cfp]Yes and no, Ashcroft. allow me to quote from the "Introduction to Neufreistadt" notecard, which was itself copied from the old Neualtenburg website (and is repeated on the wiki):

[quote:2h7a7cfp]Overview and Philosophy
Neufreistadt is a nonprofit cooperative and self-governed community whose purpose is to:

* enable group ownership of high-quality public, private, and open-space land;
* create a themed yet expressive community of public and private builds;
* and implement novel democratic forms of self government within Second Life.

The city is modeled after a medieval Bavarian city with postmodern architectural elements in the private sim of Neufreistadt. Most of SL is based upon the precepts of modern architecture, where land and buildings are dominated by the rectangle. One of the goals of this project is to create a city which replaces orthogonality with organic and brings together the medieval and modern.[/quote:2h7a7cfp]

In a sense, we [i:2h7a7cfp]are[/i:2h7a7cfp] about democracy, although I agree this is in large part because we believe that it is a useful component to the other two. But Neualtenburg, then Neufreistadt, and now the CDS, are still very much an experiment in progress.[/quote:2h7a7cfp]

We are not [i:2h7a7cfp]about[/i:2h7a7cfp] democracy in the sense that our [i:2h7a7cfp]raison d'etre[/i:2h7a7cfp] is being democratic and nothing else: we are about [i:2h7a7cfp]using[/i:2h7a7cfp] the advantages that democracy brings to acheive goals that are not about democracy themselves. Indeed, were that not the case, the whole enterprise would be pointless: democracy is only any good at acting as a check on real governmental power, and there is no real governmental power if the government does not do anything.

[quote:2h7a7cfp]I'm not overly worried about the forum postings; just as on the old LL forums, the set of forum-goers and the set of usefully productive SL users are mostly mutually exclusive. [/quote:2h7a7cfp]

Why do you exclude the possibility that useful things can be accomplished on the forums themselves?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Fernando Book":1g89kn4p]Perhaps there was no political thinking about the State as a service provider, but the State (or the tribe, or the town) do provided some services, from safety (maybe the first one), to what we call today social or economic services (wheat distribution in Rome or Athens, etc.).[/quote:1g89kn4p]

Those services are far more similar to the services that the CDS provides than the services that you mentioned before, that are unique to modern (20th century and later) states.

[quote:1g89kn4p]The rule of law is not a guarantee of democracy. In Spain we had a forty-years dictatorship based, most of its time, in the rule of law.[/quote:1g89kn4p]

The rule of law may not by itself guarantee democracy, but its absence guarantees the lack of democracy.

[quote:1g89kn4p]Every item falls under FDR's freedom from fear.[/quote:1g89kn4p]

Then why do you go onto assert below that this "fear" is absent? Are you seriously suggesting that there are not residents of SecondLife who wish to be free (or, at least, freer than they are now) of the prospect of fraud, harassment, breach of contract, IP violations and defamation, to take only a few examples?

[quote:1g89kn4p]'That is not true' is not an answer.[/quote:1g89kn4p]

Not by itself, of course. That was what the next sentence was for. Did you read that?

[quote:1g89kn4p]And you haven't addressed my concerns (that had nothing to do with computer code): we can't modify anyone rights[/quote:1g89kn4p]

Of course we can. We can say "You have no right to build in a modern architectural style in Neufreistadt". We can enforce that by, ultimately, taking away a person's land if he or she does, in fact, build in a modern style in Neufreistadt.

[quote:1g89kn4p]we have no necessity (unless you are a compulsive consumer), and we have no fear (a griefer is only a few minutes of discomfort; a grid wide griefing attack is an FBI question).[/quote:1g89kn4p]

Why do you ignore the important things to which I made reference above, that is fraud, breach of conract, IP violations and defamation? And griefers can be extremely disruptive - why should a state machinary not exist to deal with them?

[quote:1g89kn4p]You may be right, and in general I agree with this point, but we haven't proved it yet. And I'm afraid we are not legislating to achieve any aim.[/quote:1g89kn4p]

Why do you say that? What sort of aim would you like to see achieved?

[quote:1g89kn4p]OK, but we have to prove it. How? I don't know, but we can look at our number of citizens, economic growth, territorial expansion, number of franchulates, number of contracts, number of events, use of our venues, traffic in our sims, number of pupils in our schools, cityzenry satisfaction... Perhaps none of this items is valid, but we should have some objective parameters we can look at to check if we are succeeding or failing. And to show the SL world that democracy is worth the effort.[/quote:1g89kn4p]

The index of success that I suggest in my original post is the extent to which we succeed in building a cohesive civil soceity, in which the principles of community spirit, democratic participation in decisionmaking and the rule of law stand together to promote the interests of all.

[quote:1g89kn4p]Because it's fun, it's very interesting, I like debates, I like politics, I have some free time, I like useless things...
But the problem, Ashcroft, is that your question is the kind of question you make to an unwanted visitor in a party. Is this your party?[/quote:1g89kn4p]

Why is that a problem?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":ej7akjei]I personally have seen the government's role as thus:

* Covenant enforcement. Because part of the reason for our existence is to live in a nice, themed sim that isn't as crapped-up as the mainland.

* Contract enforcement. While there is RL law a-plenty, having a de-facto business law in SL is useful for reasons that have otherwise been described.

* "Invigorator". That is, our government gives a way to help focus and organize various events in the community.

... and that is just about it. As Fernando so ably points out, there's not a whole lot else we [i:ej7akjei]need[/i:ej7akjei] to do. It's why I quit grumbling over the Judicary Act (we need something, and we can always modify as needed!) but have gnashed my teeth over other, far more trivial things... because they are trivial things the city has no business doing.[/quote:ej7akjei]

Why do you exclude the possibility that the government might do other useful things (for example, enforcement of IP rights)?