Moderator: SC Moderators
In the proprietary faction posting section, where I cannot post, Diderot has proposed a platform for a new Party called "The Simplicity Party." I wholeheartedly support this party and platform. I would be proud to be a simpleton.
Thank you Diderot.
Beathan
Anyone currently in the (in world) group can invite someone; I forgot to request Gwyn to allow open posting in the SP forum.
So, Gwyn, if you read this, do that. I figure we'll do a lot of discussion on the forum, and I see no need to restrict the loyal opposition from having their say. 
My only qualm with the simplicity party as described by Aliasi is its commitment to strong unity and centralization. I don't think that this commitment necessarily follows from a desire for simplicity or openness in government. Rather, I think it might be an accident of our current size (two sims; less than 50 people).
What I would propose is to have the faction focus on simpifying government, rather than ensuring unity. As a short-term practical matter, a drive to simplify would probably ensure the kind of unity Aliasi desires. However, I think we should not be bound to strong centralization of government as a prior commitment.
Beathan
Gwyneth has not yet opened the forum for public access, so I shall reply to your comment here:
[quote:2uqcx4xh]Consider our 'legal system' - I believe there are at least three or four cases on the docket now, and not one of them, to my knowledge, has been successfully heard. Even allowing for the fact that things are just getting started up and we have only one judge at the moment, this does not seem to speak well in favor of the current setup.[/quote:2uqcx4xh]
This is a wholly unfair criticism. I am currently undertaking the drafting of a comprehensive code of procedure, which is a massive undertaking. I am doing that in my spare time and fitting it around the demands of a busy full-time legal career. I am further distracted by the need to deal with the judicial qualifications procedure, which arose in the process far earlier than I had anticipated. The code of procedure is between two thirds and three quarters done, and should be ready fairly soon.
It would be utterly disasterous to rush into things that need to be done properly: the old adage, "act in haste, repent at leisure" is not one the relevance of which I should like to see brought to our attention in the most unpleasant of ways. Indeed, it has only been a few [i:2uqcx4xh]weeks[/i:2uqcx4xh] since the Judiciary Act was passed: the expedition with which our judiciary has been, and is being, established is unparallelled anywhere in the world. That we are not doing it even faster, but are taking our time to get it right, is a potent sign of success, not a sign of failure.
Colonia Nova was not built in a day, nor should it have been: our legal system is no different.
[quote="Beathan":27wnty7k]My only qualm with the simplicity party as described by Aliasi is its commitment to strong unity and centralization. I don't think that this commitment necessarily follows from a desire for simplicity or openness in government. Rather, I think it might be an accident of our current size (two sims; less than 50 people).[/quote:27wnty7k]
Actually, we have 61 people now. And unity of government is condusive to simplicity because it entails far fewer governmental instiutions, and far fewer potentially complex relationships, both in theory and in practice, between different governmental institutions.
However, I rather suspect that the Simplicity Party is about a specific political manifesto outlined by Aliasi in her first post, which includes unity, and is not just about [i:27wnty7k]anything[/i:27wnty7k] to do with simplicity, in just the same way as the US Democratic party has a specific political agenda and is not about just [i:27wnty7k]anything[/i:27wnty7k] to do with democracy.
[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":3u683glg]Anyone currently in the (in world) group can invite someone; I forgot to request Gwyn to allow open posting in the SP forum.
So, Gwyn, if you read this, do that. I figure we'll do a lot of discussion on the forum, and I see no need to restrict the loyal opposition from having their say. [/quote:3u683glg]
I just remembered I have more or less the same powers as does Gwyn with respect to moderation of the forums. I have therefore made the Simplicity usergroup open for membership, which means that anyone can join the party and participate in the debate as they wish (I have already added Beathan and Publius).
I do however hesitate to open up the group for posting by anyone as I would hate to see our most useful working canvas be filled up with for example defensorates of the judiciary as it stands.
There is a certain benefit to having a discussion group only for members where you get the chance to propose and review for example draft legislation before it is exposed to discussion in the public. It allows for example the coordination of one's positions before the position is exposed to external critique preventing any political adversaries from applying divide-and-conquer or filibustering tactics.
Ashcroft wrote [quote:28uhe4bc]However, I rather suspect that the Simplicity Party is about a specific political manifesto outlined by Aliasi in her first post, which includes unity, and is not just about anything to do with simplicity, in just the same way as the US Democratic party has a specific political agenda and is not about just anything to do with democracy.[/quote:28uhe4bc]
I am not inclined to agree. Originally proposed, the name of the party was the Unity party -- and unity was its primary focus. I could not support such a faction. However, I understand and expect that the party has now been recast as a party that favors institutional simplicity as its primary focus. With a polity of less than 100 people, unity follows naturally from simplicity. Under those circumstances, with the primary goal being simplicity, I can support unity.
(I usually try to avoid addressing individuals in my posts, but I think I need to depart form that rule here.)
Ashcroft, I know that you have taken on a huge undertaking in your creation of the judiciary. From what I seen, your procedure will be workable. However, the judicial selection process is deeply flawed -- and a judiciary cannot function without judges, and judges who are acceptable, both individually and institutionally, to the people governed. I don't think this process will produce that result.
Further, while I recognize and appreciate the effort you have and are committing to the development of the judicial system, I am skeptical that you have not made substantial unnecessary work for yourself. You seem committed to complex systems based on a belief that the system must be as complex as the problems it solves. I don't agree with that. Simple systems are often the most flexible -- and it is flexibility that is key in responding to complicated and ever-varying problems.
Beathan
[quote="Beathan":fizvm9zq]I am not inclined to agree. Originally proposed, the name of the party was the Unity party -- and unity was its primary focus. I could not support such a faction. However, I understand and expect that the party has now been recast as a party that favors institutional simplicity as its primary focus. With a polity of less than 100 people, unity follows naturally from simplicity. Under those circumstances, with the primary goal being simplicity, I can support unity.[/quote:fizvm9zq]
We should perhaps ask Aliasi what the current manifesto of the party is. Last time that she posted on the matter, unity was as much on the agenda as simplicity.
[quote:fizvm9zq]Ashcroft, I know that you have taken on a huge undertaking in your creation of the judiciary. From what I seen, your procedure will be workable. [/quote:fizvm9zq]
I am glad that you think so. I look forward to a time in the near future when we will both be working with it.
[quote:fizvm9zq]However, the judicial selection process is deeply flawed -- and a judiciary cannot function without judges, and judges who are acceptable, both individually and institutionally, to the people governed. I don't think this process will produce that result.[/quote:fizvm9zq]
We will have to see whether, ultimately, we have two qualified candidates at the end of the process. If we do not, the procedures may have to be reconsidered. I am not, however, committed to reducing the overall stringency of the requirements: it is vital that we have good judges. Whether the present form of application is workable is a matter that remains to be seen. As I have written elsewhere, if the process yields only one further judge, that judge will then have an input into the qualification process necessary to fulfil the rest of our quota, and may bring fresh ideas.
[quote:fizvm9zq]Further, while I recognize and appreciate the effort you have and are committing to the development of the judicial system, I am skeptical that you have not made substantial unnecessary work for yourself. You seem committed to complex systems based on a belief that the system must be as complex as the problems it solves. I don't agree with that. Simple systems are often the most flexible -- and it is flexibility that is key in responding to complicated and ever-varying problems.[/quote:fizvm9zq]
Not all kinds of flexibility are good: good legal systems need flexibility in the right places, but also they need a high degree of predictability. I am taking great trouble in the drafting of the code to ensure such a balance. You will see that the scheme of the code tends to be to set out the powers of the court, then list some factors that must be taken into account in making the decision, then provide for the procedure whereby parties may make representations about that decision, but, in most cases, leaves the ultimate decision to the discretion of the judge. Bounded discretion (combined with more precise and harder rules in certain areas where predictability is especially important) is what, in terms of procedural law at least (substantive law needs more rules with definite outcomes, since the point is that it should in most cases be applied by citizens without reference to a court at all), strikes the right balance between flexibility and predictability.
Ashcroft wrote [quote:4xktacxd]We should perhaps ask Aliasi what the current manifesto of the party is. Last time that she posted on the matter, unity was as much on the agenda as simplicity.
[/quote:4xktacxd]
Possibly. However, as long as I can get there by derivation, rather than committed party principle, I'm fine with it. To me, the party name change, although more cosmetic than substantive, allows me this friendly fiction.
[quote:4xktacxd]We will have to see whether, ultimately, we have two qualified candidates at the end of the process. If we do not, the procedures may have to be reconsidered. I am not, however, committed to reducing the overall stringency of the requirements: it is vital that we have good judges. Whether the present form of application is workable is a matter that remains to be seen. As I have written elsewhere, if the process yields only one further judge, that judge will then have an input into the qualification process necessary to fulfil the rest of our quota, and may bring fresh ideas. [/quote:4xktacxd]
As you and I have discussed inworld, but not on the forums, I don't believe that two judges is enough unless the SC is set up to hear all appeals. To me, without a right to appeal, justice is impossible. If we have two judges, they would be charged with hearing each other's appeals -- and that would be harmful either to justice or to their relationship. Appeals, if not heard by the SC, should be heard by a panel of three judges. This requires either four judges (if we don't want the trial judge to hear his own appeals as part of a panel) or three judges (if we don't mind the prospect of appealing to the trial judge in the hope that the others will outvote him).
Further, I know that Fernando and others would cry foul if the only judges were Ashcroft and his RL friend. Such a captured agency is always suspect -- and a captured judiciary particularly so.
[quote:4xktacxd]Not all kinds of flexibility are good: good legal systems need flexibility in the right places, but also they need a high degree of predictability. I am taking great trouble in the drafting of the code to ensure such a balance. You will see that the scheme of the code tends to be to set out the powers of the court, then list some factors that must be taken into account in making the decision, then provide for the procedure whereby parties may make representations about that decision, but, in most cases, leaves the ultimate decision to the discretion of the judge. Bounded discretion (combined with more precise and harder rules in certain areas where predictability is especially important) is what, in terms of procedural law at least (substantive law needs more rules with definite outcomes, since the point is that it should in most cases be applied by citizens without reference to a court at all), strikes the right balance between flexibility and predictability.
[/quote:4xktacxd]
I agree wholeheartedly with your notion of bounded discretion. As an American and therefore naturally litigious and more committe to the idea that law should stay out of most areas of my life, I am more skeptical of your analysis of substantive law. However, substantive law is generally the province of the RA except where common law is authorized.
Beathan
[quote="Beathan":1hj265ec]As you and I have discussed inworld, but not on the forums, I don't believe that two judges is enough unless the SC is set up to hear all appeals. To me, without a right to appeal, justice is impossible. If we have two judges, they would be charged with hearing each other's appeals -- and that would be harmful either to justice or to their relationship. Appeals, if not heard by the SC, should be heard by a panel of three judges. This requires either four judges (if we don't want the trial judge to hear his own appeals as part of a panel) or three judges (if we don't mind the prospect of appealing to the trial judge in the hope that the others will outvote him).
Further, I know that Fernando and others would cry foul if the only judges were Ashcroft and his RL friend. Such a captured agency is always suspect -- and a captured judiciary particularly so.[/quote:1hj265ec]
I never suggested that two judges are enough for the long-term: after all, the quota has been set at 3, and that must be respected. However, two are better than one, and, with a second judge, we might have a fresh input to the qualification process so that we can have more than two in due course.
As I already explained, appeals to the Court of Scientific Council are deliberately restricted, and for a good reason. If we want to be able to have appeals on wider grounds, we need to establish an inferior Court of Common Jurisdiction, and increase the quota of judges to four, so that, in any given case, one judge can hear the case at first instance and, if there is an appeal, three judges can hear the appeal.
I am currently writing the Code of Procedure on the basis that we have one Court of Common Jurisdiction, but I am deliberately leaving gaps for procedures (including appeals) related to inferior Courts of Common Jurisdiction so that, when and if the Chair of the Judiciary Commission decides to increase the quota of courts, I can easily fit in provisions relating to inferior courts without disrupting what else is there.
[quote:1hj265ec]I agree wholeheartedly with your notion of bounded discretion.[/quote:1hj265ec]
Then I hope that you will like my code
[quote:1hj265ec]As an American and therefore naturally litigious and more committe to the idea that law should stay out of most areas of my life, I am more skeptical of your analysis of substantive law.[/quote:1hj265ec]
I do not see what in the analysis of substantive law requiring precise and predictable rules means that law is more restrictive than substantive law that involves judicial discretion. Indeed, substantive law that involves judicial discretion is far [i:1hj265ec]more[/i:1hj265ec] invasive in that, in order to have a judicial discretion exercised in one's favour, one will on many occasions have to be brought before the courts by somebody who would like the law to intervene more than it should, and not until after a costly and uncertain process (in which you might settle, so that what would otherwise be established as your right is eroded), will it be discovered that, in your particular case at least, it does not.
[quote:1hj265ec]However, substantive law is generally the province of the RA except where common law is authorized.[/quote:1hj265ec]
Common law is authorised everywhere where the RA has not explicitly stipulated to the contrary.
[quote="Beathan":2akokhdt]
Possibly. However, as long as I can get there by derivation, rather than committed party principle, I'm fine with it. To me, the party name change, although more cosmetic than substantive, allows me this friendly fiction.
[/quote:2akokhdt]
In my own view (since I can hardly claim to speak for all) the unity principle is associated with simpler government in the sense that we should not multiply entities needlessly. That is, the mere fact that we have two sims instead of one does not necessarily follow that we need another government, any more than a city that expands from [i:2akokhdt]x[/i:2akokhdt] square miles to 2[i:2akokhdt]x[/i:2akokhdt] square miles necessarily must become two cities. "Might bes" do not give sufficent reason, either. CN [i:2akokhdt]might[/i:2akokhdt] develop a seperate and distinct culture, but currently it does not and is effectively "South Neufreistadt".
It does not mean I am wedded to the principle of governmental unity as a core value; my initial 'manifesto' was speaking of our present situation. I am wedded to very little as a core value save for my personal moral principles, keeping the tier fee paid, and keeping this experiment of a democratic cp-operative from becoming democratic in name only. This is why I was a member of the DPU, after all!
Aliasi wrote [quote:1h2s1fey]In my own view (since I can hardly claim to speak for all) the unity principle is associated with simpler government in the sense that we should not multiply entities needlessly. That is, the mere fact that we have two sims instead of one does not necessarily follow that we need another government, any more than a city that expands from x square miles to 2x square miles necessarily must become two cities. "Might bes" do not give sufficent reason, either. CN might develop a seperate and distinct culture, but currently it does not and is effectively "South Neufreistadt".
It does not mean I am wedded to the principle of governmental unity as a core value; my initial 'manifesto' was speaking of our present situation. [/quote:1h2s1fey]
This is what I understood, and I am completely on board. I think that we should not prejudge local difference either way. We should not deny it and prevent it from developing. However, we should also not assume it in advance. On this basis -- I am perfectly willing, as an adovocate of local authority -- to start that authority in the narrowly defined realm of landuse as called out by the platform.
I also note that I am now a Passionate Protagonist. Woot!!
Of course, as Claude observed, that just means I am a particularly loud newbie. 
Beathan
I think there is some confusion about the meaning of unity. It dies not necessarily mean that all agree. With respect to the platform of the Simplicity Faction, I understand this to mean singleness, one-ness, as in one government, one source of authority, one source of policy/laws, not many committees, governing agencies, and sources of policy. In unity, there is simplicity and in simplicity, there is unity. 
Rudy, right you are.
However, my concern is that I don't want a prior commitment to the idea that all things should be subject to national, rather than local, control. As a practical matter, as a virtual state with 2 sims and around 65 people, all national things are local, and vice versa. However, if things take off and the CDS becomes impossibly large, the simple solution might be to empower local institutions.
This is a speculative, "what about someday" kind of concern, however. For now, one is simpler than more than one.
Beathan