Proposed Constitutional Amendment: Clarification of Powers

[Jon Seattle]

Ah, no, Gxeremio, Ashcroft has no desire to be head of the CDS. He can achieve his goals without that. In the future, if things go his way I expect:

• Every bill we consider will undergo his professional, “rational”, rewrite before it can be debated. The RA will be too intimidated to pass anything that he does not approve. UHDR will no longer have a role.

• The forum will go from a place where citizens calmly discuss policy options to one where people can bring their ideas to Ashcroft for consideration. Every thread will be a dialog between a citizen and Ashcroft. He clearly has the time and will to run every debate.

• Ashcroft will sit in judgement in a court with the power to take away other’s land and citizenship. This court will be there to settle disputes between citizens. Increasing those disputes will be between Ashcroft supporters and people who question his role.

• Ashcroft will use his court to hear cases against the other branches of government. Many of these cases will also be brought by his supporters. Our branches are run by volunteers who lack the time or resources to hire lawyers to defend themselves over weeks and months of a court case, and so even without the cases having any merit, people making decisions will try their best to make sure that Ashcroft approves before they take any action.

I don’t think Ashcroft at all sees himself as being dictatorial or an enemy of a government for and by the people. To the contrary he sees himself as a tireless defender of law and order and democracy. He is just rigidly following his model of how the world should work. Unfortunately actions that may not damage a large city or country (in fact may be necessary to get ideas heard) can devastate liberty and democracy in a small cooperative. You see liberty is a delicate thing.

Ashcroft is a man, unfortunately, who does not believe that he himself can have complex motives. His faith in himself as the arbiter of reason is one thing that makes him so dangerous. I do think, Gxeremio, if we do not manage to restore the balance of power, many of the liberties we now enjoy in the CDS will things of the past.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Jon Seattle":2errxqq3]• Every bill we consider will undergo his professional, “rational”, rewrite before it can be debated. The RA will be too intimidated to pass anything that he does not approve. UHDR will no longer have a role.[/quote:2errxqq3]

Intimidated how, exactly? What do you expect that I am going to do - get somebody to fashion a dead horse's head from prims and put it in people's prim houses? As for the UDHR, why have you entirely ignored the specific points that I have made about that? Come to think of it, why have you entirely ignored my previous response to your points?

[quote:2errxqq3]• The forum will go from a place where citizens calmly discuss policy options to one where people can bring their ideas to Ashcroft for consideration. Every thread will be a dialog between a citizen and Ashcroft. He clearly has the time and will to run every debate.[/quote:2errxqq3]

I have not been "running every debate": I have been engaging in debates about the very thing that concerns my function here: the judiciary. Again, you grossly exaggerate. And what exactly is your criticism here? Are you now claiming that it is [i:2errxqq3]wrong[/i:2errxqq3] for people to engage in debates and defend what they believe in? And you criticise [i:2errxqq3]me[/i:2errxqq3] (incorrectly) for having insufficient regard for human rights.

[quote:2errxqq3]• Ashcroft will sit in judgement in a court with the power to take away other’s land and citizenship.[/quote:2errxqq3]

Somebody has to do it, and far better that it be an independent, professional judiciary than anything else.

[quote:2errxqq3]This court will be there to settle disputes between citizens. Increasing those disputes will be between Ashcroft supporters and people who question his role.[/quote:2errxqq3]

Are you seriously suggesting that I will use the court system to banish those who disagree with me [i:2errxqq3]because[/i:2errxqq3] they disagree with me? I evidently grossly underestimated both your malice and tendency to make rash and unfounded judgments about people. The right way for anybody to deal with people who disagree with her or him is to show, through reasoned argument, why the opposing view is wrong.

[quote:2errxqq3]• Ashcroft will use his court to hear cases against the other branches of government. Many of these cases will also be brought by his supporters. Our branches are run by volunteers who lack the time or resources to hire lawyers to defend themselves over weeks and months of a court case, and so even without the cases having any merit, people making decisions will try their best to make sure that Ashcroft approves before they take any action.[/quote:2errxqq3]

See above on malice and unfounded and improper accusations.

[quote:2errxqq3]I don’t think Ashcroft at all sees himself as being dictatorial or an enemy of a government for and by the people. To the contrary he sees himself as a tireless defender of law and order and democracy. He is just rigidly following his model of how the world should work. Unfortunately actions that may not damage a large city or country (in fact may be necessary to get ideas heard) can devastate liberty and democracy in a small cooperative. You see liberty is a delicate thing.[/quote:2errxqq3]

How, precisely, do you contend that anything that I have actually done (as opposed to the things that you baselessly assume that I will do) damaged anybody's liberty?

[quote:2errxqq3]Ashcroft is a man, unfortunately, who does not believe that he himself can have complex motives.[/quote:2errxqq3]

What kind of complex motives do you think that I have? And are you suggesting that you are in a better position to judge my own motives than I am?

[quote:2errxqq3]His faith in himself as the arbiter of reason is one thing that makes him so dangerous.[/quote:2errxqq3]

Reason is the arbiter of reason, not any one person. I have never claimed to be infallible: if I believed myself to be infallible, why do you imagine that I make arguments in support of my claims, rather than merely making assertions and expecting people to accept what I claim merely because I claim it, as many people do here? The only true way of discriminating between what is reasonable and what is not is to debate, discuss and consider the inherent merits of the thing, intellectually and usually in detail, and respond precisely and at as much length as necessary to each point raised in such a discussion. It is not to guess, or do what one feels like doing, or all follow what one person happens to believe, or do what most people seem to believe (without questioning whether their beliefs themselves have merit), or to stick unthinkingly to absurdly approximate rules of thumb (such as "things should be simple").

[quote:2errxqq3]I do think, Gxeremio, if we do not manage to restore the balance of power, many of the liberties we now enjoy in the CDS will things of the past.[/quote:2errxqq3]

Why, exactly?

[Jon Seattle]

This amendment is withdrawn in favor of a new amendment I will post shortly.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Jon Seattle":3aetn1xn]This amendment is withdrawn in favor of a new amendment I will post shortly.[/quote:3aetn1xn]

How many more times will the legislature change its mind? And how much time will this new proposal get for public discussion?

[Jon Seattle]

At least three days.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Jon Seattle":3v6q6e84]At least three days.[/quote:3v6q6e84]

I find it hard to believe that anyone could honestly consider that sufficient. How do you?

[Jon Seattle]

Ashcroft, you have shown again and again that you can post huge numbers of messages, some quite long, in this time frame. I have no doubt that you shall provide us with quite a lot to read in three (and approx. 1/2) days.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Jon Seattle":1eq994gr]Ashcroft, you have shown again and again that you can post huge numbers of messages, some quite long, in this time frame. I have no doubt that you shall provide us with quite a lot to read in three (and approx. 1/2) days.[/quote:1eq994gr]

I have only been able to post at this length to-day because I am still on my Christmas holiday. To-morrow, I go back to work. And even if I was able to post at some length between now and the next meeting, there would, you must be compelled to accept, be insufficient time to digest the implications of it and debate it properly. Do you genuinely, honestly believe that any such proposal can be considered properly and carefully, and have devoted to it the attention that it needs in three and a half days?

[Justice Soothsayer]

Jon's work, in proposing the amendment that started this thread, and in subsequent legislative initiatives he will propose in response to it, is not based on 3.14159 days of discussions. Though as Jon has said, it seems 3.14159 days would be enough to generate many thousands of words - not just by Ash, but others as well (just to make sure that the implied criticism is not taken as being aimed at any one person individually). Rather, what has been going on in these fora for many weeks and months has been an extensive though unfortunately occasionally nasty debate about the wisdom of the Judiciary Act as passed by the RA.

Our world, and CDS in particular, is a very nascent development. Only after many weeks of discussion have some significant issues come to light about the Judiciary Act and the legal philosophies underlying it. The CSDF-initiated pause seems to me to be a most rational and far from amateurish response.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Justice Soothsayer":1m8zzpsw]Jon's work, in proposing the amendment that started this thread, and in subsequent legislative initiatives he will propose in response to it, is not based on 3.14159 days of discussions. Though as Jon has said, it seems 3.14159 days would be enough to generate many thousands of words - not just by Ash, but others as well (just to make sure that the implied criticism is not taken as being aimed at any one person individually). Rather, what has been going on in these fora for many weeks and months has been an extensive though unfortunately occasionally nasty debate about the wisdom of the Judiciary Act as passed by the RA.

Our world, and CDS in particular, is a very nascent development. Only after many weeks of discussion have some significant issues come to light about the Judiciary Act and the legal philosophies underlying it. The CSDF-initiated pause seems to me to be a most rational and far from amateurish response.[/quote:1m8zzpsw]

Was it not you who said, after the Special Commission reported, that the way forward was amendment, not repeal or suspension?

And why don't you wait until after the election - until after the people have had a chance to have their say on what sort of judicial system that they want (the faction platforms will make the choice quite clear, I imagine); or are you afraid that the people won't agree with you?