On The Incredible Attempt To Abolish The White List

[Beathan]

Pat --

It is in the Legislative discussion. You have posted there -- pointing out my error in thinking that there was a field around the Red House.

Beathan

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":3e2vz2gc][quote="Ranma Tardis":3e2vz2gc]My bill will be voted on as scheduled, I have no intention on withdrawing it.[/quote:3e2vz2gc]Could you post a copy of it on the forums? I've looked in this thread and the other one but couldn't find it. Aplogies if I've overlooked it [/quote:3e2vz2gc]

Hi Pat, It is a very simple bill as follows,

The use of entry (white) lists in the land controls is forbidden as being against the common good of the citizens and visitors of the CDS. The use of this land control is considered to be a class one misdemeanor.

This bill is open to friendly amendment during the discussion before and during the upcoming RA meeting. The second sentence can be deleted in its entirety if needed for passage. and workability

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Ranma Tardis":1nm0rjuy]The use of entry (white) lists in the land controls is forbidden as being against the common good of the citizens and visitors of the CDS. The use of this land control is considered to be a class one misdemeanor.

This bill is open to friendly amendment during the discussion before and during the upcoming RA meeting. The second sentence can be deleted in its entirety if needed for passage. and workability[/quote:1nm0rjuy]Thanks Ranma. I don't really understand the second sentence though, what is a 'class one misdemeanor', it's not something I've seen referred to in our CDS code of laws before. Could you elaborate?

[Beathan]

Rather than apply this as a matter of criminal code or categorization, why don't we just make it a land use matter. Again, I'm not advocating a position, but floating a proposal. We can add a requirement to the land use rules that prohibits use of white list force fields.

Rudy has an interesting point that these land use restrictions, perhaps, should not be imposed ex post facto. The retroactive effect of governmental land regulation is a hot issue iRL. Current American thinking is that it is OK as long as the property retains some market value. Statutes and intitiatives have passed in various places to change this permissive rule (permissive in the sense of allowing governments to regulate, not in the sense of permitting human people to use their land as they see fit).

I think that land use regulation is certainly one area the CDS can do better than the RL court systems, at least the American ones (athough I understand most European countries to be even more permissive to governmental action, in some cases so much so that many Europeans (at least those with whom I have discussed this matter) don't even see the issue or problem and scratch their heads at the American desire to use private property however the owner wants as another example of the curious American lunacy concerning individual rights in general and real property rights in particular.)

Beathan

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="Beathan":2pergdg6]Rather than apply this as a matter of criminal code or categorization, why don't we just make it a land use matter. Again, I'm not advocating a position, but floating a proposal. We can add a requirement to the land use rules that prohibits use of white list force fields.

Rudy has an interesting point that these land use restrictions, perhaps, should not be imposed ex post facto. The retroactive effect of governmental land regulation is a hot issue iRL. Current American thinking is that it is OK as long as the property retains some market value. Statutes and intitiatives have passed in various places to change this permissive rule (permissive in the sense of allowing governments to regulate, not in the sense of permitting human people to use their land as they see fit).

I think that land use regulation is certainly one area the CDS can do better than the RL court systems, at least the American ones (athough I understand most European countries to be even more permissive to governmental action, in some cases so much so that many Europeans (at least those with whom I have discussed this matter) don't even see the issue or problem and scratch their heads at the American desire to use private property however the owner wants as another example of the curious American lunacy concerning individual rights in general and real property rights in particular.)

Beathan[/quote:2pergdg6]

Look at it this way, having a lot next to one using a white list lowers its value. What is the value of a lot surrounded by no entry lines?

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1mmbtwrj][quote="Ranma Tardis":1mmbtwrj]The use of entry (white) lists in the land controls is forbidden as being against the common good of the citizens and visitors of the CDS. The use of this land control is considered to be a class one misdemeanor.

This bill is open to friendly amendment during the discussion before and during the upcoming RA meeting. The second sentence can be deleted in its entirety if needed for passage. and workability[/quote:1mmbtwrj]Thanks Ranma. I don't really understand the second sentence though, what is a 'class one misdemeanor', it's not something I've seen referred to in our CDS code of laws before. Could you elaborate?[/quote:1mmbtwrj]

I was trying to show that the first offense should not be punished very harshly. Since our criminal code does not use these terms I just drop the second sentance and make the entire bill as follows.

The use of entry (white) lists in the land controls is forbidden as being against the common good of the citizens and visitors of the CDS.

[Rudy Ruml]

I finally have seen the actual bill before the Ra for illegalizing the white list for one's home that provides security and privacy. It is: "The use of entry (white) lists in the land controls is forbidden as being against the common good of the citizens and visitors of the CDS."

I want RA members to consider what they are telling the rest of us if they vote for this. Each who votes for this is saying: I don't like what are doing to protect yourself, and therefore I am going to pass a law against it. Of course this is being done under cover of a "community good," but it is no less the use of government to dictate one's personal taste.

Of course, some assumptions are added to it. People will not like to live here if there are lines around property, it is said. There is no proof of this, and I could argue that once possible residents found out about his law against protecting rights, they would go elsewhere. I would have. And so would have my neighbor who I know will if the law is passed. And there are other assumptions I dealt with in previous posts.

Come on, you who will vote on this, be honest and admit that this is a simple case of trying to make personal taste and values a law, whether others in the community agree or not.

If you still want to pass this, first consider submitting it to the community for a vote as an initiative.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Rudy Ruml":vhxylqkf]
I want RA members to consider what they are telling the rest of us if they vote for this. Each who votes for this is saying: I don't like what are doing to protect yourself, and therefore I am going to pass a law against it. Of course this is being done under cover of a "community good," but it is no less the use of government to dictate one's personal taste.
[/quote:vhxylqkf]

I concur. That is to say, I think whitelists are in very bad taste for the most part; I do not like the use of them, and I'd be inclined to ban someone who used them just on principle so THEY would have to see the red screen as well.

But I would never dream of outlawing them.

[Patroklus Murakami]

I've just thought of a loophole that may may this ineffective and encourage undermining the intentions of the proposal. (Just to be clear, I would oppose it in any case!)

The proposal bans 'white lists', i.e. lists of people who can always enter your property, the assumption being that no one else can. It does not ban 'black lists', i.e. lists of people you don't want to enter your property. Now I think we'd all agree that black lists are essential to have some control over griefers. What is to stop a citizen, angered by this legislation and considering it to be an affront to civil liberties, from banning everyone else in the CDS (or perhaps just the supporters of the legislation) from their property in protest? That would leave us back at square one, but with community relations damaged in the process.

I think this proposal should be withdrawn. It is an illiberal proposition (for the reasons that Rudy has given) and I doubt it would achieve its intended purpose if passed.

[michelmanen]

Whilst I do not like white lists and resent being bumped by them, I dislike even more the tought of the government legislating what a citizen can and cannot do on his / her property to ensure security and privacy. If an individual can be persuaded to use only locking door mechanisms; so much the better; id not, despite my intense dislike for them, he/she should be free to use whitelists to portect himself/ herself.

"The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."
(Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Canadian Prime Minister, 1968-1984)

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="michelmanen":2ofhz8zd]Whilst I do not like white lists and resent being bumped by them, I dislike even more the tought of the government legislating what a citizen can and cannot do on his / her property to ensure security and privacy. If an individual can be persuaded to use only locking door mechanisms; so much the better; id not, despite my intense dislike for them, he/she should be free to use whitelists to portect himself/ herself.

"The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."
(Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Canadian Prime Minister, 1968-1984)[/quote:2ofhz8zd]

This is not about being in the "bedrooms" of our fellow citizens. Using the white list does not protect you. It does act as a grief to your fellow citizens. It also acts as an attraction to griefers. Nothing like flying your vehicle and hitting a no entry line. One second you are flying and the next dismounted and spinning through the air. No this is not about privacy.............
About FAA altitude rules, if we could fly(without a vehicle) in real life the law would be very different. The min altitude rules are for safety and noise reasons and not for privacy.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

If we don't have rules about ban lines, why have any rules about the look of our city at all? In other words, if the right to personal property includes the ability to create an eyesore (and at the same time restrict the free movement of others), why should we have other rules that restrict our right to do whatever we want with our land?