Moderator: SC Moderators
There has been quite a bit of discussion about what level of local autonomy constituent sims/communities of CDS ought to have. I have received some requests for a Town Hall to discuss this. Please reply and indicate:
1) Whether you believe such a discussion to be desirable
2) When we might hold it
Hmm, I favour forum discussion, as it gives more opportunity for careful consideration and the development of sophisticated and fully-reasoned arguments. Also, forum discussion enables wider participation, as it is not constrained by availability at a specific time, which may be timezone limited for many people.
I think it would be most important to have a community-wide discussion on the issue of autonomy before taking any decision in that regard. I second the opinions of others on the forum that it would be best to use multiple media to facilitate the discussion. I would prefer that an in-world discussion event would take place at some point during a weekend that would enable the widest range of participants from Europe and North America. Alternatively, we could a town hall meeting split over two days with times convenient for citizens from either range of time zones.
Without wanting to pre-empt the debate on autonomy I believe it would be prudent to take into account for those desiring a maximum degree of autonomy that the new sim has been bought and paid out of funds earned through the participation of citizens from the old sim, which in my view means that any bid for increased autonomy, which goes further than deciding the provisions of building covenants should be supported by an argument underlining how the new sim has earned such a right to this increased autonomy.
This discussion seems a little premature to me. Why do people think we need to determine what level of local autonomy the individual sims should have when we haven't yet completed the work on our second sim and moved in new residents?
Surely the point at which we should discuss this would be six months (or some other appropriate 'bedding-in' time) after the establishment of Colonia Nova when the residents of CN and Neufreistadt have had time to consider how much local autonomy they feel they need? Otherwise, we're trying to develop a solution in the dark on the basis of the views of current residents (whose needs may well be different from those of our expanded community) and without any experience of what living in CN or NFS will be like once we have expanded.
Since any change to the current arrangements will require yet more constitutional amendment, is this really what we should be focussing on as a community right now?
I want to strongly support Pat on this. So far a number of people have been moving to Colonia Nova but have remained very much part of our community. Growing our community through new sim regions like Colonia Nova will strengthen it and provide more diversity. Lets give this a chance to really happen before we start cutting ties.
And yes, there are strong sociological and historical reasons to believe that is we do start cutting those ties at population 35 or 40, the larger community will never emerge.
[quote="Jon Seattle":1r7vf82s]I want to strongly support Pat on this. So far a number of people have been moving to Colonia Nova but have remained very much part of our community. Growing our community through new sim regions like Colonia Nova will strengthen it and provide more diversity. Lets give this a chance to really happen before we start cutting ties.
And yes, there are strong sociological and historical reasons to believe that is we do start cutting those ties at population 35 or 40, the larger community will never emerge.[/quote:1r7vf82s]
I am not referring to cutting ties but am wondering what degree of local determination. The point in question is local zoning ordnances. My point is they should be local and not imposed on the community by a RA that has no members in the community. Will this always be true well no. One day perhaps soon CN will have a resident in the RA but the majority for the near future will be residents of neu. The RA will make the major decisions but some decisions like what should be constructed where or how many trees per 100sq meters should be decided by the residents of the sim. This is an important point.
I also do not think the forums replace a meeting. The residents of North America face the prospect of waking up in the early morning hours to attend sessions of the RA. The time for this meeting is 2am in Hawaii. In effect a major segment of the community has been taken out of the debate. Yes I can leave cute messages here but they don’t have the same effect. Also point out that I have not been happy with the majority of the decisions of the RA and have not been able to speak out before the decisions were made. Now I am told a town hall is not possible due to the time differences. I think that this decision is too important to be decided by 5 members of the community in the dark of the night. It needs to be brought and discused during the light of the day.
[quote="Ranma Tardis":2zdpj7wd]My point is they should be local and not imposed on the community by a RA that has no members in the community. Will this always be true well no. One day perhaps soon CN will have a resident in the RA but the majority for the near future will be residents of neu.[/quote:2zdpj7wd]
There is now at least one member of the RA who resides in Colonia Nova. I've relocated to a new, larger plot in CN just outside the walls. Drop by for a visit anytime!
[quote="Justice Soothsayer":1qjj3owo][quote="Ranma Tardis":1qjj3owo]My point is they should be local and not imposed on the community by a RA that has no members in the community. Will this always be true well no. One day perhaps soon CN will have a resident in the RA but the majority for the near future will be residents of neu.[/quote:1qjj3owo]
There is now at least one member of the RA who resides in Colonia Nova. I've relocated to a new, larger plot in CN just outside the walls. Drop by for a visit anytime![/quote:1qjj3owo]
Does not make a difference, the RA meets in the dark of the night. Also you are only one vote out of five.
My main point is that since these are different themed sims the residents of the sim should decide the theme within the guildlines of the consitution.
Oh, my new Villia is just down the street from you residence. It is not complete but please drop by 
Diderot Mirabeau wrote
[quote:1bg9a8bc]Without wanting to pre-empt the debate on autonomy I believe it would be prudent to take into account for those desiring a maximum degree of autonomy that the new sim has been bought and paid out of funds earned through the participation of citizens from the old sim, which in my view means that any bid for increased autonomy, which goes further than deciding the provisions of building covenants should be supported by an argument underlining how the new sim has earned such a right to this increased autonomy.[/quote:1bg9a8bc]
As a new member of this community coming in after a lot of hard lifting has already been done and taking residence as a (and perhaps the only or first) citizen whose sole residence in Colonia Nova, I have to both tread softly on this point while also raising the concerns of an immigrant (as I will presumably not be the only immigrant).
I think any discussion of the distinctions between Neufreistadt and Colonia Nova should include two foci -- autonomy [i:1bg9a8bc]and representation[/i:1bg9a8bc]. Autonomy would relate to the areas in which each sim is allowed to govern itself. Representation concerns whether representation will be had based on unified votes of all CDS citizens, or whether there will be regional voting and possibly regional representation. Further, these discussions should respect the probably emergence of cultural distinctions between the sims that will arise (almost unavoidably) from the different RL histories evoked from the thematic differences in the sims.
Further, I think that this emergence of cultural difference should be welcomed, not opposed, by the CDS for several reasons: (1) having a wider range of choices and cultures will help attract new immigrants (like me); (2) having real differences between the sims, differences that run deeper than mere architectural style, will promote the freedom of the citizens by allowing citizens to choose to live in the regions that best accord with their own needs and desires (I will develop this theme in a later post I am preparing on the fundamental right to travel as the only necessary basis of civil liberties); but this requires that the choice of residence be a real choice, not a pseudochoice; (3) it will allow us to extend this virtual political experiment to include a real investigation into the RL issues of multiculturalism and democracy; (4) it will likely enhance the connections among citizens in CDS as they come to identify with a culture within the CDS; and (5) it will enhance and foster the development of a marketplace of ideas with the CDS as the cultures that emerge from the sim differences interact with and shape each other through the joint political process. I think that all citizens of the CDS should welcome and encourage these developments. Further, I think institutions should be created to enhance and promote the process of emerging multiculturalism without regard to questions of whether the new culture has "earned" its right to exist and express itself.
With regard to autonomy, the question should focus on what issues of sim management are properly issues of local, not federal, concern. I think that this is a philosophical question, not an economic one. To require that Colonia Nova earn its autonomy places Colonia Nova in the position of an inferior state, degrading citizenship in Colonia Nova in comparison to citizenship in Neufreistadt. I don' t think that this degradation can actually benefit anyone -- including the Neufreistadt citizens who worked so hard and invested so much time, resources and money in the creation of Colonia Nova. Rather, I would expect that a requirement to earn equality with Neufreistadt would lead to resentment and rebellion in the Colony, just as similar restrictions on Colonial citizenship and autonomy led to resentment and rebellion in RL.
Rather than requring that Colonia Nova earn its autonomy, we should discuss and determine what things we think are appropriately left as matters of local concern. This will probably also require that we develop a theory of the source of power -- does it exist primarily in the central state, subject to delegation to regional governments and citizens (as Ashcroft appears to argue), or does it exist primarily in the will of the governed, in which case it is delegated upward to government at all levels such that the central government is not privileged over the local government as a matter of principle, but only as a matter of practice based on the will of the governed (which is the theory I hold).
I think that questions of autonomy and the identification of which questions and issues are best left for local determination is a thorny one, but I also think that local culture can survive and flourish in two circumstances: (1) high autonomy and (2) law autonomy, but also minimalism in the exercise of central authority which allows for local freedom under the principle that "what is not prohibited is permitted." However, of these two, I think high autonomy is most conducive to and protective of individual civil liberties (again, I will post my analysis soon).
With regard to regional representation, we face similar issues. At present, I understand that parties are elected, not individual condidates, so party platforms become critical. Given this process, I would expect to see the emergence of regional parties if the distinctiveness and development of one region is stifled (or perceived to be stifled or slighted) while another is not. We see something of this sort in Canada with the Parti Quebecois, in Ireland with Sein Fein, and many other places in RL. On balance, I believe that these movements are vitriolic to the state. I also beleive that these movements are preventable by allowing cultural differences to survive and flourish -- and to institutionalize a recognition and tolerance, even celebration, of regional differences within the state.
To this end, I would propose that, regardless of whether parties or individuals are elected, an effort be made to distribute power among the regions such that regions are respected and given representation. This will force us to consider questions of regional citizenship in cases in which a CDS citizen has residences in more than one region. (We don't want cases, like we had when Robert Kennedy was elected as Senator from New York, when bitter New Yorkers could say that Massachusetts had three Senators and New York only one.)
However, if Diderot's concerns about return on investment are shared by the founders who worked so hard on Colonia Nova, such that the founders take on the classic desire of Imperialists to profit from their creation of colony states while preserving their identity with the home country, I would welcome a discussion of what would be necessary for colonials like myself to do to earn equality with the CDS homeland. A repayment of debts by donations? A particular level of involvement in public works? Creation of a monumental and celebratory statute or Arch in Neufreistadt as recognition of its magnaminity in allowing us colonials to live the lives of full citizens, rather than relegating us to second-class status? I, for one, would be willing to do what I can to oblige any such demands by the founders provided the result is real, equal status and a level of freedom that promotes the full, natural and healthy growth of Colonia Nova as its own region -- as sister-region with Neufreistadt -- with a co-equal place in the C.D.S.
Beathan Vale
Beathan raises quite a few interesting points. And perhaps because there are so many good ideas we should follow the advice to deal with more immediate matters of the holidays, judiciary and city preparation first.
This certainly would be a new can of worms to dig into thoroughly and many other more immediate concerns about maintaining an active sim exist.
Beathan,
you write very well (I particularly like your analytic style), and you raise very interesting points. I do not have time to reply at length because I am working on the Code of Procedure for the judiciary. However, I have two queries.
1. Can we really be sure - or even conclude decicively that it is probable - that significantly distinct cultures will emerge in different SecondLife sims in the way that they do in physical territories? In SecondLife, unlike real life, people can teleport anywhere in an instant, and talk just as freely to people immediately next to them, and, via IM, those on the other side of the grid. Is it not the absence of this ability in real life that leads geographic regions to develop their own distinctive cultures?
2. You write of equality with the citizens in Neufreistadt, yet I am unsure how you think that there is inequality: how are your rights, duties, privelidges, immunities, powers, liabilities and disabilities different from those of a CDS citizen living in Neufreistadt? Indeed, is the position substantively different because our new sim is not physically connected to Neufreistadt, is called "Colonia Nova", and has a Roman theme than had we bought a second sim, put it right next to Neufreistadt, called it "Neufreistadt II", and used the same theme? Can it either really be considered a colony, when colonisation involves taking over existing land, rather than creating new land? Do the real world metaphors about distinct regions and colonialism make any sense in a world where land can be created as fast as a company in California can add computers to its datacentre, and where people can move a thousand (virtual) miles as quickly as they can take a single step?
[quote="Beathan":1g1ng003]
As a new member of this community coming in after a lot of hard lifting has already been done and taking residence as a (and perhaps the only or first) citizen whose sole residence in Colonia Nova, I have to both tread softly on this point while also raising the concerns of an immigrant (as I will presumably not be the only immigrant).
[/quote:1g1ng003]
There's lots here to discuss, but I'll plow in.
[quote:1g1ng003]
With regard to autonomy, the question should focus on what issues of sim management are properly issues of local, not federal, concern. I think that this is a philosophical question, not an economic one. To require that Colonia Nova earn its autonomy places Colonia Nova in the position of an inferior state, degrading citizenship in Colonia Nova in comparison to citizenship in Neufreistadt. I don' t think that this degradation can actually benefit anyone -- including the Neufreistadt citizens who worked so hard and invested so much time, resources and money in the creation of Colonia Nova. Rather, I would expect that a requirement to earn equality with Neufreistadt would lead to resentment and rebellion in the Colony, just as similar restrictions on Colonial citizenship and autonomy led to resentment and rebellion in RL.
[/quote:1g1ng003]
If I read Diderot correctly (which I may not be doing) his concern is this: The CDS central government has assumed more than $3000 USD in debt to get Colonia Nova off the ground. A concern, though perhaps not a well founded one, is that the incoming citizens would assert a great deal of autonomy and leave the central government "holding the bill". I hope it is nothing more than that.
[quote:1g1ng003]
Rather than requring that Colonia Nova earn its autonomy, we should discuss and determine what things we think are appropriately left as matters of local concern. This will probably also require that we develop a theory of the source of power -- does it exist primarily in the central state, subject to delegation to regional governments and citizens (as Ashcroft appears to argue), or does it exist primarily in the will of the governed, in which case it is delegated upward to government at all levels such that the central government is not privileged over the local government as a matter of principle, but only as a matter of practice based on the will of the governed (which is the theory I hold).
[/quote:1g1ng003]
At the moment power flows down from the central state because no other governing entity exists. There is also the old salt, "possession is 9/10 of the law." All CDS land is held by a single estate owner, which is an office of the central government. For the relative authority of local governments to be an issue, there have to be some local governments. If an existing community currently holding its own land chose to join CDS, this issue would come to the front burner. Such a thing might at some point come out of the provision for mainland franchulates.
[quote:1g1ng003]
...
With regard to regional representation, we face similar issues. At present, I understand that parties are elected, not individual condidates, so party platforms become critical. Given this process, I would expect to see the emergence of regional parties if the distinctiveness and development of one region is stifled (or perceived to be stifled or slighted) while another is not. We see something of this sort in Canada with the Parti Quebecois, in Ireland with Sein Fein, and many other places in RL. On balance, I believe that these movements are vitriolic to the state. I also beleive that these movements are preventable by allowing cultural differences to survive and flourish -- and to institutionalize a recognition and tolerance, even celebration, of regional differences within the state.
To this end, I would propose that, regardless of whether parties or individuals are elected, an effort be made to distribute power among the regions such that regions are respected and given representation. This will force us to consider questions of regional citizenship in cases in which a CDS citizen has residences in more than one region. (We don't want cases, like we had when Robert Kennedy was elected as Senator from New York, when bitter New Yorkers could say that Massachusetts had three Senators and New York only one.)
[/quote:1g1ng003]
Both existing factions proposed such a thing in their platforms. The CSDF called for adding regional representatives to the RA, while the DPU called for the addition of a second chamber to the legislative branch. Some have questioned how much cultural distinctiveness can be present in a community of 50, and I think this is why these proposals have yet to make it to the floor of the RA.
Here is a place where your two foci of autonomy and representation intersect. Regional representation exists primarily to protect local/regional interests from central government incursion. If a high autonomy model exists, is such protection necessary?
Another question that has yet to be answered is, "If local areas have a high degree of autonomy, what is the purpose of a federal legislature?" It seems to me that making localities with a great deal of autonomy would leave the RA with very little to do.
Ashcroft asked, [quote:1xfwk60k]Can we really be sure - or even conclude decicively that it is probable - that significantly distinct cultures will emerge in different SecondLife sims in the way that they do in physical territories? In SecondLife, unlike real life, people can teleport anywhere in an instant, and talk just as freely to people immediately next to them, and, via IM, those on the other side of the grid. Is it not the absence of this ability in real life that leads geographic regions to develop their own distinctive cultures? [/quote:1xfwk60k]
I agree, we cannot know for sure what effects an additional sim will have on identity and culture within the CDS. Even when themed differently such that the sims evoke different RL cultures, the online cultural impact might be de minimis. However, I would expect cultural distinction to emerge, and I think we already see it. (Our discussion of Christmas vs. Roman winter festivals already highlights cultural distinctions.)
However, I do not think that geographical distance and barriers create cultural distinctions. Rather, I think that widely separated areas can and do share a culture, and different cultures can and do coexist in the same RL space. For instance, Jewish culture, which has a real unity to it, existed in diaspora by sharing commonalities despite geographic separation and despite being surrounded by and embedded in other cultures associated with the regions in which Jews made their homes. There were problems arising from both the separation and lack of separation involved, but Jewish culture has survived intact nonetheless.
That said, I think that cultural distinction and identity could be as productive and creative a force in a democracy as cultural homogeneity could be. There are trade-offs in either case. There are counter-arguments in both directions. However, on balance, I prefer the promote, preserve and protect creative and productive differences, which would multiply the number of choices our virtual society offers to citizens and potential citizens. Viva la difference!
Ashcroft wrote [quote:1xfwk60k]You write of equality with the citizens in Neufreistadt, yet I am unsure how you think that there is inequality: how are your rights, duties, privelidges, immunities, powers, liabilities and disabilities different from those of a CDS citizen living in Neufreistadt? [/quote:1xfwk60k]
At the moment, I feel no disenfranchisement. However, if I am asked to bear a permanent burden of gratitude to those who came before me, there will come a point at which I will say -- "I have been grateful enough." Further, if history is a guide, I will grow tired of this obligation before the founders cease to expect such gratitude. If the gratitude system is institutionalized, then I and immigrants like me will chafe under the institutions at some point, that that will foment discontent and rebellion. A bit of foresight could prevent this problem. I'm not against gratitude and due repayment for the great efforts that created this project and these sims, but I do want the obligations that result to be clearly defined so that there is no confusion and conflict when one group expects more than another group feels obligated to provide.
Ashcroft wrote [quote:1xfwk60k]Can it either really be considered a colony, when colonisation involves taking over existing land, rather than creating new land? Do the real world metaphors about distinct regions and colonialism make any sense in a world where land can be created as fast as a company in California can add computers to its datacentre, and where people can move a thousand (virtual) miles as quickly as they can take a single step?[/quote:1xfwk60k]
I don't think that conceptually the creation of a colony implies the takeover of existing land rather than the creation of new land. In fact, if we study the rhetoric of colonies -- both Greek colonies and European colonies -- there is the rhetoric of creation, rather than take-over. Land is presumed to be empty and unused. Colonies purport to create something new and wonderful where before there was the geographic equivalent of the void. I agree that we are not dealing with the moral and political problems involved with displaced natives and ecosystems, but we are still deeply involved in the practice and rhetoric of colonization.
Claude wrote [quote:1xfwk60k] If I read Diderot correctly (which I may not be doing) his concern is this: The CDS central government has assumed more than $3000 USD in debt to get Colonia Nova off the ground. A concern, though perhaps not a well founded one, is that the incoming citizens would assert a great deal of autonomy and leave the central government "holding the bill". I hope it is nothing more than that. [/quote:1xfwk60k]
I think that you are right in thinking that the fiscal concern can be addressed. Land use fees, the SL equivalent of taxation, can and probably should be a matter of federal concern. To analogize to the United States, we can give and leave the power to tax and spend with the federal government, even provided great autonomy over regulation of land use and citizen behavior to the local authorities.
However, I think that Diderot's concern runs deeper than the money cost -- there is also the human effort, the labor cost, involved in creating Colonia Nova. While this results in a beautiful landscape which is, at least in part, its own reward, I think Diderot (again reasonably) thinks that some additional reward is called for. I would propose, as a start, permanently naming the gates, roads, and major features of the town after individual citizen-builders (using Latinized versions of their SL monikers). That might go far towards memorializing and thereby recognizing the human effort that brought Colonia Nova from nothing to the town it is becoming.
I would also invite discussion of how new citizens like me can further show our gratitude to the builders. My concern, again, is that the builders expectations of new citizens be something known and satisfiable to prevent problems later. Without some discussion now, we could easily see bitter accusations of oppression on one side and ingratitude on the other occur here, just as they occurred throughout the RL historical experience of colonies.
Claude wrote [quote:1xfwk60k]At the moment power flows down from the central state because no other governing entity exists. [/quote:1xfwk60k]
I think this misplaces the debate. Another governing entity does exist -- the body of the citizens which exercises its authority by voting. In real terms, if the central authority steps over the will of the governed, the government can expect to be replaced wholesale by reformers from the ranks. However, this raises the question -- where do those ranks want power to be exercised? A failure of this government to answer this question accurately will result in its replacement by a new government in the next election cycle.
Claude wrote "There is also the old salt, "possession is 9/10 of the law." All CDS land is held by a single estate owner, which is an office of the central government. For the relative authority of local governments to be an issue, there have to be some local governments. If an existing community currently holding its own land chose to join CDS, this issue would come to the front burner. Such a thing might at some point come out of the provision for mainland franchulates.
I don't think that this is necessarily true either. As the central government is ultimately responsible, through elections, to the citizens, the fact that the central government holds title to the land does not dispose of the issue of power. Conceptually, all governments hold fundamental (soverreign) title to the land within their jurisdiction. However, some societies provide more or less local power, and power incident to private ownership, than others. This is the discussion we should have. How much local rule do the people want -- and how can we give them that much local rule, and no more?
Further, resolving this question now could provide a sound foundation in the event other communities voluntarily join us. In fact, resolving this question well could help us induce other communities to join us, if we chose to recruit them.
Claude wrote [quote:1xfwk60k] Both existing factions proposed such a thing in their platforms. The CSDF called for adding regional representatives to the RA, while the DPU called for the addition of a second chamber to the legislative branch. Some have questioned how much cultural distinctiveness can be present in a community of 50, and I think this is why these proposals have yet to make it to the floor of the RA. [/quote:1xfwk60k]
These are both good proposals on the issue of representation. I have already described why I think we can expect cultural distinctiveness to emerge, and why I think that cultural distinctiveness is a good and attractive thing which we ought to encourage. Hopefully, one or both of these proposals will be moved forward.
Claude wrote [quote:1xfwk60k] Here is a place where your two foci of autonomy and representation intersect. Regional representation exists primarily to protect local/regional interests from central government incursion. If a high autonomy model exists, is such protection necessary? [/quote:1xfwk60k]
I disagree with your premise that local representation and autonomy both exist to prevent federal encroachment and therefore are mutually supporting and overlapping, even to the point of redundancy. In addition to preserving local rights and distinctiveness, local autonomy is also more efficient that federal government by being "on the spot." Further, by being local and necessarily involved in local concerns, local autonomy can also produce more complete, detailed, fitted, and nuanced responses to problems -- as well as avoiding problems caused by a federal "solution" that overlooks a problem obvious to people "on the spot." Further, local autonomy allows for local experimentation, which, if successful, can be widely implemented and, if unsuccessful, cause localized and minimized, rather than generalized, problems.
Local representation, in addition to protecting local interests, benefits federal interests by expanding the points of view available and by allowing the federal system to see the effects of local experiments without committing the entire body politic to the risk of such experiments. Local representation also creates channels of communication between citizens and the federal system, leading to a greater feeling of commitment to the federal system and a greater comfort level with the federal system's role in and interaction with issues of local concern.
Claude wrote [quote:1xfwk60k]Another question that has yet to be answered is, "If local areas have a high degree of autonomy, what is the purpose of a federal legislature?" It seems to me that making localities with a great deal of autonomy would leave the RA with very little to do.[/quote:1xfwk60k]
This is a fair question -- and is exactly the flipside of the question, "what issues are properly matters of local concern?" Presumably, there will be issue of local concern and issues of national or general concern. Each government can operate within its own province of concern and feel fully satisfied in doing so. Effective local government, properly defined, does not impair, impede or limit effective federal government, and vice versa. The level of local autonomy I am advocating does not imply Separatism; in fact, it is designed to preempt the Separatist impulse. I would like to see individual sims be more like RL Puerto Rico than like RL Quebec or Ireland.