On civil soceity

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Tad Peckham":3wnlkmge]i think, what it comes down to ashcroft is that i am tired of you constantly grandstanding your own social and political adgenda for neufreistadt.[/quote:3wnlkmge]

This sort of personal attack is hardly a constructive contribution to this discussion about building a civil soceity. What you have written above is decidedly lacking in civility.

Furthermore, why, exactly, are you tired of my contributions to the ongoing debate about the future of the CDS? We are a democracy in which we value free speech: the forums are, just as their Roman namesakes, a place for political (and other) discussion and debate. Why should people not enter into debate about their sincere vision for the future of this community?

[quote:3wnlkmge] for that, i am sorry for posting in this thread. maybe my thoughts would have more appropriately posted elsewhere. i am not sorry however, for thinking that a complex system of law and government for 49 people is not needed. i think such complexity for so few people comes with serious risks: one of which being alienation. of course, i'm sure you will just say that's just a bland assumption on my part. so be it.[/quote:3wnlkmge]

I have dealt with the issue a number of times - you are not engaging with the point that I was making at all (about the number of people governed not being the relevant factor in deciding how complex that a government needs to be), even though I have made the point every time that you have raised the issue of complexity (entirely out of place, as you now admit). Really, if you were sincere about wanting to believe the truth, and promote what is genuinely right, you would not ignore challenges to your opinions, but would engage with them, and either show them to be unfounded, or accept them, and change your opinion.

[Desmond Shang]

Hi all!

I've been reading these forums off and on for a while now, so I thought it would be fair to mention that I was.

Carry on! I have no wish to be disruptive, as a guest on your forums.

*waves to many old friends who know who they are*

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":3cxbfawk]Leave it to you to pull criticism out of a suggestion. Why do YOU prefer a slogan that omits reference to truth, compassion, peace, sustainability, human rights, freedom, love, tolerance, hope, creativity, unity, generosity, and education? Obviously the omission of these virtues from our slogan is intolerable! [/quote:3cxbfawk]

Is asking for reasons for your preference a criticism? I notice that, characteristically, you have not answered my question.

[Fernando Book]

[quote:3ddrrr8b]What kind of a bizarre conception of a right are you using here? [/quote:3ddrrr8b]
A hierarchical one, I was thinking on Human Rights, I was not thinking on the right to build a Bauhaus building inside the City or in the right of the Pope to design bishops.
[quote="Ashcroft":3ddrrr8b][quote="Fernando":3ddrrr8b]I don't see the huddled masses knocking on our door asking for the rule of law as a new Gospel[/quote:3ddrrr8b]
Do you seriously think that that would happen how ever important that the rule of law is? [/quote:3ddrrr8b]
No, but I don't see neither masses nor a couple of people.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3ddrrr8b]Actually, the position is that the Scientific Council has the power to veto primary legislation if it contradicts the UNHDR. Nowhere is it provided that the Courts of Common Jurisdiction (or even the Court of Scientific Council) must regard the UNHDR as a source of law. [/quote:3ddrrr8b]
[quote="CDS Constitution":3ddrrr8b]All branches of the government are bound to serve the public before themselves and to uphold the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, local laws, the SL ToS, and Community Standards without exception. [/quote:3ddrrr8b]
Do you think we must have judges that don't have the UDHR as a beacon to guide their resolutions?
[quote:3ddrrr8b]Don't be silly - not all aims are good.[/quote:3ddrrr8b]
But not all aims are evil.
[quote:3ddrrr8b]What is special about the number three? Why should three examples be necessary? That number seems to me to be entirely arbitrary. [/quote:3ddrrr8b]
You are right, it's entirely arbitrary. Can you bring one only example how to check in a year, in an objective way, if we have succeed in any of the aims you have stated related to a Civil Society?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Desmond Shang":1rh69bik]Hi all!

I've been reading these forums off and on for a while now, so I thought it would be fair to mention that I was.

Carry on! I have no wish to be disruptive, as a guest on your forums.

*waves to many old friends who know who they are*[/quote:1rh69bik]

Welcome! We really should get an embassy arrangement going with you. That can only help to promote our civil soceity.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Fernando Book":312kaz9k]A hierarchical one, I was thinking on Human Rights, I was not thinking on the right to build a Bauhaus building inside the City or in the right of the Pope to design bishops.[/quote:312kaz9k]

If you meant "human rights", as opposed to rights simpliciter (which are conceptually vastly different), you should have said so. But do you seriously think that human rights are the only kind of rights that matter in SL? If so, why?

[quote="Ashcroft":312kaz9k]No, but I don't see neither masses nor a couple of people.[/quote:312kaz9k]

Then you are evidently not looking. There are already people interested in franchulates for the purposes of contract enforcement, and already cases waiting for our judiciary to be fully set-up.

[quote:312kaz9k]Do you think we must have judges that don't have the UDHR as a beacon to guide their resolutions?[/quote:312kaz9k]

The constitution as amended by the Judiciary Act distinctly provides a series of sources of law for the Court of Common Jurisdiction. The UNHDR is not amongst them. That is deliberate, since the UNHDR is far too vague to be treated as legislation. It is a set of aspirations, and nothing more. It is not well-drafted enough to be treated as if it were a distinct source of law. Indeed, the whole basis of the common law system that we established with the Judiciary Act was that, because it would be utterly impossible for a community as small as ours to garner the resources to draft, within a sane period of time, a comprehensive penal code. With that in mind, you might also wish to call to mind the sections on the UNHDR mandating an effective judicial system.

[quote:312kaz9k]But not all aims are evil.[/quote:312kaz9k]

Precisely - so we need to select only good aims. Not any old aim will do.

[quote:312kaz9k]You are right, it's entirely arbitrary. Can you bring one only example how to check in a year, in an objective way, if we have succeed in any of the aims you have stated related to a Civil Society?[/quote:312kaz9k]

A non-trivial number of people who have joined us because they would prefer to live under some form of government than not.

[Tad Peckham]

[quote:vtqwmoxo]This sort of personal attack is hardly a constructive contribution to this discussion about building a civil soceity. What you have written above is decidedly lacking in civility. [/quote:vtqwmoxo]

no worse than you constantly saying things like 'are you even capable of...', or 'this is just a silly argument', or 'this is just absurd...'. i find those statements equally lacking in civility and see no reason to respect them.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1scqt1bg][quote="Aliasi Stonebender":1scqt1bg]Two years of practical experience.[/quote:1scqt1bg]

Why have you excluded from your experiences all the work that went into designing the judiciary on the forums, for example?[/quote:1scqt1bg]

Why are you incapable of forming a sentence without a question mark?

And, to answer your question, I not only used two years of experience, but an [i:1scqt1bg]entire life[/i:1scqt1bg] of observing friends and family suffer under a malformed judicial system. Further details are none of your business.

[Claude Desmoulins]

A broad issue here is the relationship of civil society to government. From Pat's description, it sounds to me as if civil society is all that stuff which is [i:2bg35vg4]not [/i:2bg35vg4]government. That's great, as we certainly need things other than government. I guess I am a bit confused as I first saw the term in connection with CSDF platform documents. Isn't building a civil society mostly about letting groups do their thing and staying out of the way?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2xn12su2]A broad issue here is the relationship of civil society to government. From Pat's description, it sounds to me as if civil society is all that stuff which is [i:2xn12su2]not [/i:2xn12su2]government. That's great, as we certainly need things other than government. I guess I am a bit confused as I first saw the term in connection with CSDF platform documents. Isn't building a civil society mostly about letting groups do their thing and staying out of the way?[/quote:2xn12su2]

Government and the state are a part of, but not all of, civil soceity. Government and the state are the institutions that are capable of creating an environment in which civil soceity outside government (education, the arts, and so forth) can flourish: that is what government is for. However, in discharging those functions, the operations of government themselves become part of the civil soceity that it exists to promote.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":17jsnmee]Why are you incapable of forming a sentence without a question mark?[/quote:17jsnmee]

I am not. However, questions are useful and potentially powerful means of scrutinising claims. If one asks a pertinent question of an opponent in a debate that that opponent cannot answer in any way consistent with what he or she is claiming, one has succeeded in forming a conclusive argument against that person's position. Similarly, questions can, if properly answered, elucidate the true nature of what is being claimed, narrow areas of disagreement, and enable both parties to understand each other's position better.

[quote:17jsnmee]And, to answer your question, I not only used two years of experience, but an [i:17jsnmee]entire life[/i:17jsnmee] of observing friends and family suffer under a malformed judicial system. Further details are none of your business.[/quote:17jsnmee]

So you exclude the progress that has gone into making our judicial system well-formed on the forums because of a personal greivance with your local judiciary, not because no useful work was actually done on our judiciary in the forums?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Tad Peckham":2m61tl9p]no worse than you constantly saying things like 'are you even capable of...', or 'this is just a silly argument', or 'this is just absurd...'. i find those statements equally lacking in civility and see no reason to respect them.[/quote:2m61tl9p]

If people make an argument that is absurd, why should it not be pointed out? There is, however, a very great difference between stating that a person's argument is absurd and being actually hostile and malicious towards a person.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

Ash, you have avoided saying "far, far" in this thread, and only used "precisely" once. Congratulations!
However, you have used "always" twice, and you have some new words that are becoming characteristic in this thread.
"Blandly" has been used by you once in this thread, but I thought bland meant "lacking taste or flavor." After a google definition search for "bland" yielded no help, I searched for uses of the term, and it appears that a "bland assertion" is an unsubstantiated claim. Is this how you mean it?
New on the charts in this thread is "Why do you exclude...?" which you have used 5 times.
And just FYI, you have written 49 questions in this thread, and posted 21 times out of 42 total posts in the thread (exactly half). Seems the forum is more of a place for you to hold debates with others than a forum for public discussion. My previously held belief that forums are typically a waste of time and energy has been reconfirmed, sadly.

[Pelanor Eldrich]

Being a relative political and civics noob, I wikied "civil society". It seems like the sum of non-gov't organizations that have some, none or loose links to gov't that tie together a society. Like the Red Cross, Boy Scouts, Labor Unions and other stuff.

Sounds good, we need more of it.

Gxeremio: This is unrelated, but I think we can fully accomodate Esperantoj within the CDS. The DPU seeks a federation, allowing the flexibility you seek in a local gov't. I really think we can meet your needs. I'll post about this soon. Let's all keep this civil.

Ashcroft: Keep posting, it's your right and civic duty. Remember two things. One is that we're a community and building consensus and political persuation are not just about debate. There must be listening and compromise and accomodation. The second thing, is "i before e except after c". Two notable exceptions being society and deity. There are exceptions to every rule (even in law and programming).

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":161jwwmn]Ash, you have avoided saying "far, far" in this thread, and only used "precisely" once. Congratulations!
However, you have used "always" twice, and you have some new words that are becoming characteristic in this thread.[/quote:161jwwmn]

What do you think that this adds to the discussion?

[quote:161jwwmn]"Blandly" has been used by you once in this thread, but I thought bland meant "lacking taste or flavor." After a google definition search for "bland" yielded no help, I searched for uses of the term, and it appears that a "bland assertion" is an unsubstantiated claim. Is this how you mean it?[/quote:161jwwmn]

Yes.

[quote:161jwwmn]New on the charts in this thread is "Why do you exclude...?" which you have used 5 times.
And just FYI, you have written 49 questions in this thread, and posted 21 times out of 42 total posts in the thread (exactly half). Seems the forum is more of a place for you to hold debates with others than a forum for public discussion. My previously held belief that forums are typically a waste of time and energy has been reconfirmed, sadly.[/quote:161jwwmn]

Debates are only wasteful where one party refuses to engage in them properly by, for example, seeking to prevail by mere repetition of unreasoned assertions, rather than reasoning, or refusing to answer the other side's questions. When both parties have true intellectual engagement, debate, whether on a forum or elsewhere, can be a very enriching experience indeed.