Taking the pulse on government structure

[Claude Desmoulins]

I believe many of the discussions we are now wrapped up in come back to a very meaningful difference of opinion about the overall structure of our government. I'd characterize the three major positions as follows:

[b:281ulsxc]Central and Complex[/b:281ulsxc]

This, I believe,reflects what we have now, consisting of one government which is fairly complex.

[b:281ulsxc]Central and Simple[/b:281ulsxc]

This is exemplified by Rudy's suggestion that all of CDS just needs an elected "town council"

[b:281ulsxc]Decentralized[/b:281ulsxc]

Per Beathan's suggestion to encourage the development of distinct culture and institutions in each sim.

Keep in mind that I'm painting in very broad strokes. Nevertheless, how does everyone feel on this issue (hence the poll)?

[Jon Seattle]

It feels a little like a "push poll". A nuanced approach is also possible. I would vote for the following:

1. Change what we have now in some ways. Do this by analyzing what we need and what we use. Simplify things that are too complex for their current function.

2. Move away from the idealized medieval organization of some of our institutions toward a more modern structure.

3. Assign key responsibilities to voluntary or community chartered associations where this is appropriate.

4. Decentralize selectively and over time, making sure to keep intact our shared community and body politic.

Which of the three buttons do I push to choose these options? I actually support some of each. Which did you choose Claude?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Jon Seattle":1rtp8ygk]It feels a little like a "push poll". A nuanced approach is also possible. I would vote for the following:

1. Change what we have now in some ways. Do this by analyzing what we need and what we use. Simplify things that are too complex for their current function. [/quote:1rtp8ygk]

Current or expected future function, surely. And do you believe that there are any such things? If so, what?

[quote:1rtp8ygk]2. Move away from the idealized medieval organization of some of our institutions toward a more modern structure.[/quote:1rtp8ygk]

In what ways do you think that our structure is an "idealised medeival" one? Indeed, what [i:1rtp8ygk]is[/i:1rtp8ygk] an idealised medieval structure, exactly?

[quote:1rtp8ygk]3. Assign key responsibilities to voluntary or community chartered associations where this is appropriate.[/quote:1rtp8ygk]

Ahh, like your Guild proposal?

[Claude Desmoulins]

Now Jon, I admitted I was painting broadly. As to your claim of a push poll, precisely which terms in the poll options did you feel were "loaded"? My point is that I see I see two continua here: simple/small vs. complex/large and centralized vs. decentralized. My poll options were an imprecise attempt to get a sense as to where people are on those two continua.

[Jon Seattle]

Lets look at the poll's first two answer choices and compare it to the third:

[quote:3anz38ma]What sort of overall government ought we have?
1. Keep what we have now.[/quote:3anz38ma]

Pick this choice if you want to keep everything the same. Clearly not the option for people (like myself) who want to change some things.

[quote:3anz38ma]2. Get rid of everything but the R.A.[/quote:3anz38ma]

More absolute than the first! This one indicates that you want to get rid of any kind of executive or judicial body and just leave a legislature. Not even a city manager or treasurer is left standing.

[quote:3anz38ma]3. Devolve responsibility for covenants and maybe more to the sim level[/quote:3anz38ma]

This one changes the topic. You might, for example, want to let each sim have its own legislature and choose 2 [u:3anz38ma]and[/u:3anz38ma] 3 or you may want each sim to have a multi-branch government with checks and balances and so choose options 1 [u:3anz38ma]and[/u:3anz38ma] 2. Option 3 is not on a spectrum with 1 and 2.

Notice also that unlike choices 1 and 2, option 3 uses more moderate language. To make this poll fair Claude might have used absolute language as in options 1 and 2, for example:

[i:3anz38ma]Replacement 3a: Give each sim complete independence.[/i:3anz38ma]

But with this replacement few people could answer the affirmative to any of the choices. The way this poll is designed you are supposed to pick 3. Choosing 3 has two benefits for Claude's camp:

1. He can claim that he polled CDS citizens and found that many supported his view. (Of course many of the people picking option 3, in fact have views quite different from Claude’s, but settled on it because it was the only moderate sounding choice offered).

2. The poll implies that (thus the “Push”) only Claude’s position is moderate. His opponents are all rather absolute. This may be true or not, but this particular poll won't prove that.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Perhaps you care to suggest alternate language.

[Dianne]

I also did not vote in the poll because none of the options seemed to my liking.

Just to contribute [i:16pawpmi]positively[/i:16pawpmi] however, I would say that my opinion on government structure is that it should be minimal within the sim and that the greater project of a wider SL government and wider SL business assurance and judicial system be treated separately and as a separate entity. As I have said previously, IMO for that "greater" project to work it must engage and operate with a multitude of sims of different "themes" and social structures and be able to accommodate them into its matrix if you will. It is also a good idea (IMO) for each individual community to be self-governing with the minimum of fuss and structure.

In short I kind of agree with Rudy's comment (if paraphrased correctly), but not with the specific interpretation of it by him that this would constitute a simple "[i:16pawpmi]town council[/i:16pawpmi]" or by the OP that it would "[i:16pawpmi]encompass the RA only[/i:16pawpmi]."

I feel that being as we are a Medieval Bavarian sim that something along the lines of the original government of Neualtenburg is really in order, but with a few revisions to make it more democratic and less open to corruption. I think that as a Roman sim that some sort of classical roman senate would be a good idea for Colonia Nova.

This would allow those interested in virtual government (presumeably us ), to play out scenarios of different government styles without having to force everyone under the CDS banner to toe the line and form some huge unwieldy American style government. It would also mean that if the people were [i:16pawpmi]governing themselves[/i:16pawpmi] within each sim, in a manner consistent with that community in a nice decentralised fashion, that the "overarching" government (should it exist at all), can be as minimal as possible.

Perhaps it's the anarchist in me, but I have always thought that the least government is the best government. Government in today's world is mostly needed only to control and regulate the capitalist interest and to ensure that the poverty and deprivation caused by it doesn't get too far out of control IMO. Since there is no virtual "poverty" in SL, Government should be an order of magnitude smaller for that reason.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

One option not contemplated by the poll is local government based on regions that are not defined by sim boundaries.

[Dianne]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1oxj6c65]One option not contemplated by the poll is local government based on regions that are not defined by sim boundaries.[/quote:1oxj6c65]This is a good point.

When I was talking about a Medieval themed sim and a Roman themed sim the same thought occurred to me. I would assume that a second Bavarian themed sim could or would be attached to Neufreistadt and that both together would constitute "Neufreistadt" and the same for Colonia Nova.

Alternatively both Neufreistadt and Colonia Nova could be considered a single entity (called CDS I suppose), and the "overarching government project" (as I described it) as something else again. It's all rather unclear to me where we actually stand on those issues, which is probably part of the reason behind Claude's poll as well. If NStadt and NC are n fact the same entity governed by one local government, then some kind of minimal counsel for both (option 2 in the poll) would likely be my preference. If this is the case though then the name of that government would be the CDS, but the moniker would make even less sense than it does today, as we are not then a "confederation" by any stretch of the imagination.

In hindsight, I think the addition of Colonia Nova with it's different theme and separate nature was perhaps not as well thought out as it could have been. I think it's a fantastic place from what I have seen so far with tons of potential, but in terms of the evolving government structure not exactly planned. It's birth was at a time of great confusion and under a cloud of doubt as to whether the entire project might fail, due to the Ulrika crisis, so it's to be expected that the implications might not have been completely worked out.

The fact that we managed to expand into a second sim and at the same time still be confused as to whether we are one or two communities and whether our government is a federation or a federal state or simply a state is interesting. Until we define what it is that we actually are, we can also not expect to attract any "colonies" or fiefdoms or anything of the sort.

On the plus side since it will likely be a while until any further expansion takes place we have time enough to figure it out.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

Dianne: you seem to think that [i:hs89qrtd]theme[/i:hs89qrtd] is of critical importance to government structure: why is that? Is the theme of any given geographical area not something that is merely aesthetic and related to some aspects of local entertainment, rather than something that is of such profound cultural and social significance that boundaries in theme should be marked by equivalent boundaries in governmental power?

[Beathan]

I think theme is potentially of critical importance to governmental structure specifically because it introduces an element of heterogeneity into the polity, and that diversity will require a governmental response (suppression, accommodation, somesuch). Even if radical cultural divisions do not emerge, some diversity will emerge. I think that government of a homogeneous group is easier (the homogeniety makes consensus easier and even prevents some problems or questions from arising). However, government in the face of diversity is both more interesting and more rewarding.

Further, government in the face of diversity is needed if the CDS has any broader pretensions with regard to the SL community as a whole (whether it be as a government-in-place or as an example). If we can create a structure that accommodates difference, then we are not susceptible to the argument that what we are doing is fine for SL Bavarians, but not for anyone else.

However, I think that the inclusion of a second sim, regardless of theme difference, would necessarily produce diversity. People are more likely to interact with people they see on their minimap -- so Sim location matters. Further, people will likely gravitate into groups and locate their primary houses based on existing relationships. Ingroups and outgroups will form -- always form -- whenever a group becomes large enough to produce an interesting group dynamic.

For this reason, I think that the Sim boundary is a ... dare I say ... a natural one. We might conceptually create other divisions. However, I think we will find that the Sim boundary creates a real division that we need to take into account.

That said, we have to realize that division is not necessarily a bad thing. Division means difference -- and difference can be bad or good depending on how it manifests and how it is treated when it manifests. Good government does not suppress real division; good government accommodates it, finds consensus despite it, and allows it to exist as a vehicle for individual freedom through freedom of association.

Beathan

[Dianne]

I guess I am equating the "theme" with what would be in RL the "culture" of a given area. i.e. - its not just a choice to wear clothing of a certain kind and live in buildings that look a certain way, but a lifestyle and a way of living. In the same way that "Gor" is a theme and a culture or "Vampire Goth" is a theme and a culture.

The local government would then reflect the culture or theme of the sim. A Gorean themed sim would have to have a Gorean government that took slavery and lack of human rights into account. In my musings, that would be not only okay for them but expected, and the "overarching" government would have to be able to either work with that or specifically exclude it.

Caledon is steam-punk and most of its members go around talking and acting in Victorian ways pretty much 24/7. Perhaps our themes are a little "looser" (because of our over-intellectualising?), and therefore less real or lived?? Not sure. I am not sure if I am really on the mark with this, it's hard to extrapolate and hypothesize about this stuff without any concrete examples to draw on.

It's just my opinion of the moment, for what it's worth.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Beathan":3qee0hvo]I think theme is potentially of critical importance to governmental structure specifically because it introduces an element of heterogeneity into the polity, and that diversity will require a governmental response (suppression, accommodation, somesuch). Even if radical cultural divisions do not emerge, some diversity will emerge. I think that government of a homogeneous group is easier (the homogeniety makes consensus easier and even prevents some problems or questions from arising). However, government in the face of diversity is both more interesting and more rewarding.[/quote:3qee0hvo]

Why do you think that the cultural differences, if any, between Neufreistadt and Colonia Nova will be more like the differences between the culture of one state and another than the differences between the culture of the old and the new part of a city, or between, in any given state, the urban and rural areas, or the inland or costal areas?

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Dianne":1wlr2vi6]I guess I am equating the "theme" with what would be in RL the "culture" of a given area. i.e. - its not just a choice to wear clothing of a certain kind and live in buildings that look a certain way, but a lifestyle and a way of living. In the same way that "Gor" is a theme and a culture or "Vampire Goth" is a theme and a culture.[/quote:1wlr2vi6]

Is theme the same thing as culture for us? It is for the Goreans, of course, and there is certainly a close link between theme and culture for the Caledonians, but there is nothing about the culture in Neufreistadt that is specifically medieval Bavarian: our culture is more about politics and intellect and, well, culture itself. Is it not the case that having [i:1wlr2vi6]a[/i:1wlr2vi6] theme is important to us, but that [i:1wlr2vi6]what[/i:1wlr2vi6] particular theme it is is not, provided that it is aesthetically pleasing and reasonably consistent?

[Beathan]

[quote:2ii39ez6]Why do you think that the cultural differences, if any, between Neufreistadt and Colonia Nova will be more like the differences between the culture of one state and another than the differences between the culture of the old and the new part of a city, or between, in any given state, the urban and rural areas, or the inland or costal areas?[/quote:2ii39ez6]

I don't. The jury is still out on how and to what extent differences will manifest.

Rather, what I think it is that differences will manifest and, regardless of how they manifest and how extensive they are, they will require some political response. The political response I prefer is accommodation.

This same process arises between nations, between states, between cities, between neighborhoods, even within families. Therefore, to me, the distinctions in your question do not raise relevant differences in principle (although they will inform and shape how we approach and address the differences that in fact arise).

Beathan