Open Letter to So Many Anti-Government Whiners

Alexa,

You’re right. Many of the people in the forums are already experts at making their voices heard. While I have issues with the way this happens – usually by making very controversial postings that catch the Linden eye – I do admit that it works well for some people.

And I would say it is always best to call a Linden when you have a “criminal” problem, or part of the world disappears. The problem I’m trying to address has to do with how some people are always able to be heard loud and clear by the Lindens (perhaps I’m one of them!) while large groups of players feel they aren’t being heard at all.

This would never REPLACE any tools we have now. And it isn’t meant to solve the problems of people who already have solutions to their problems.

As we grow, this disparity between the Heard and the Silent will grow as well. I hope to head it off before it becomes the class distinction people are beginning to think they notice already.

I just let them be, they are only showing how they think. Talking it to heart realy causes more problems then its worth.

I'm opposed to the idea for myself personally. (for many of the same reasons other posters are opposed no need to say what has already been said.

For those who want something like this (as long as it's a matter of choice) best of luck to you.

:words:

A typical liberal double standard. How about calling out your buddies Kathy and Ulrika for the same and then maybe I will address your statement or is it perfectly ok for them to attack the rest of us without any repercussions?

I have no double standard, I am not the one who acted all holier than thou and lectured everyone on the evil of personal attacks, you are. I love how you use the word liberal as something dismissive - where as I view liberal, aka "not an intolerant, hypocritical asshole" as a compliment. You cried foul so often about personal attacks, and then you whine like a little child here "but but Ulrika and Kathy hit me first!!! Waaah". You can't have it both ways, Billy.

Torley! Glad to hear from you!

Actually, things have calmed down a bit this deep into the thread. There are basically three reasons it got so hot. First, I opened on an inflammatory note. This ensured that I would get a large percentage of the group that nay-says government simply because they hate the idea of it. My intention was to herd them all in here and see if I could deal with their objections in front of everyone else. I wasn’t really thinking that I could convert the objectors, but maybe I could deal with some of the doubts of regular people. Besides, this is the current best way to get Linden attention – controversial threads in the forum. Precisely what I hope to provide alternatives to.

Another reason for the heat is that this is important to some of us. And anytime there are a lot of people saying you’re nuts, and you really really want to talk about it anyway, they tend to pile on. That’s alright. I got to talk about it.

The final reason is that there are a few people who actually enjoy wandering the forums and dropping little bombs of happiness just because they can. They come into a 6 page thread, read one or two at the beginning, and then weigh in like they have the answer. Since they aren’t really meaning to contribute anything, and they aren’t likely to end up in charge of anything, I tend to ignore them.

Scroll up a page or two and read one of my summations. Tell me what you think.

I don't intend to build and American style government.

Not even a democracy, since I consider most of them to be absolutely uninterested in the lot of the minority.

Nothing to do with my model, Dave. Not even close. In fact, my intent is to emplace a system that would prevent anyone except the Lindens or your local government (if you have one) from making any rules about you whatsoever.

Democracy, to work, must guarantee the rights of the minority.

There are those who will tell you that one of the eventual outcomes of the Second Life experiment – according to the Lindens themselves – is for the world to be “maintained by its citizens.” In fact, I am one of those who will say that. It’s in the CS, and many postings and statements by Philip and other Lindens.

However, that being said, this is not meant simply to fulfil that goal. This is meant to strengthen the already working “governments” that are the Groups and area governments, while specifically retaining all of the power to enforce rules in the hands of the Lindens.

Many people assume that, in order to have a “world government” we need to toss out the Lindens, and destroy home rule. Not true at all. All we need to do is build on what we have already, leaving power to govern in local hands, and power to police in Linden hands, while handling deliberation, communication and publication on a national level.

There are many things this model can be modified to accommodate. Perhaps even forming part of a judicial or arbitrative branch someday, but it’s constitution will never allow it to make laws, run a police force, interfere in local or personal freedoms, enforce rules, or touch a players account. And it will never make a decision that can’t be reviewed by LL.

That's what I thought. You are only willing to bash the conservative while it is perfectly fine for your liberal buddies. That is a week position from which to make a point indeed Cris.

Oh, you may attach whatever meaning you want on the word "liberal" but you are a very poor judge when it comes to an analysis of what I think the word means. You will see what you want to see, that much is obvious.

Well, THAT’s pretty dismissive. But what the hey, you’re probably just upset about something, right?

First, Ulrika has her own undeniably dynamic approach to discussion. While I don’t have a lot of issues with her style, I don’t understand how you’ve thrown us both into the same boat. I haven’t attacked anyone (at least recently) personally. I did so GENERALLY, and you and others may have taken it PERSONALLY, but it wasn’t a personal attack.

And I wouldn’t say I’ve done so without repercussions, either. It’s not like anyone held back or anything.

By the way, are you really allowed to use that statement without the blank left in it? “A typical _______ double standard”?

Billy, Cristiano, Stop it now this thread actualy took a turn for more inteligent debate than the condescending tone it started out with and yes I contributed to with my initial retort to Kathy.

However, Do not try to derail the conversation away from the topic that Kathy has proposed please.

In respect to you both leave the pettyness out of this thread and discuss it elsewhere as I would like to continue to review the view points that Kathy and Ulrika are putting forth so that I may reply in kind as I have time on the forums.

Now On to what I was thinking.

Kathy I appreciate that you have recended your initial condescending tone you initialy have and in review I see that it was an attention getting tactic so for that well done.

However, in appearance from latter explination of your governmental form it seemed to me you backpeddled. I took this in stride and continued to read. So before I continue I would like to repost some of my questions that still yet are attributed to your governmental model.



This quoted excerpt from my initial posting yes I edited some of the initial vehemence of my first posting of this.

So in relation to statments of People are not aware of governmental policy and or activities within their own demographics. Yes, unfortunately this is true however, there are those like myself and those that post seriously on the forums that are very much in tune with what is going on around them.

Typicaly those people are Type A personalities. Why are they so adament in this discourse to debate and argue political conjecture. Primarly because they know if they do not do it no one else will.

Thus, being dismissive of those that do respond as not knowing thier governmental interworkings is arrogant if not intolerant of those that seek to push forth thier views and Ideas.

With the questions I have listed above I have given ample opportunity for them to be responded to. Yet none were addressed as once again I was probably dismissed as overly boistierous in my initial reply.

However, I will address points made by Kathy in reference to her governmental Model. It earnstly can be summed up with one question.

Please elaborate how a voluntary participative congregation can effect change within the world of SL if it has no true voice to be heard by the powers that be?

I fully understand that you seek to have a representative body to speak to LL on behalf of problems,griefing, and general populace control measures.

I keep seeing the reply LL has stated time and again that their vision was self government.

Unfortunately, to the demise of those that so ardently seek to stand by this statement Linden Lab via Robin dismissed this with their statement about the involvement with N-berg. Initialy yes this was their goal however, with the grouping of minds that are not knee deep dramatic ditribe self government is currently not an option.

I tend to agree with Mac in his most eloquent explination that self governance is basicaly nothing more than self control and morality. Primarly things that were the founding statutes of the United States before it became the United States.

Earlier it was mentioned and I am stating this twice I do believe that people are not aware of their Real life Governments.

But I have another question in that aspect as well. What is a government typicaly used for? I mean seriously why is a government in place?

I could answer this for you but I would rather see your responses first. To understand or truly delve into the depths of what a governmental system is you have to know its purpose.

Granted Kathy has eluded to what her goal is but the primary question is what is its purpose and can the purpose be justified by it's proposed actions. In essence can it carry out what it promises to do with its goals?

Considering the tools within our grasp and the communication we have as individuals I think it would be more subverted than colusive.

Why? because I believe each person has their own view points and when you try to culminate those view points into one they will get misconstrued.

This will lead to discention because people will think the governmental representitive is not representing them as they thought.

The reason this will be is because 40 people say the same thing but they say it slightly different but without good representation that "Same Thing" will get misrepresented.

That's where it will fail on one aspect.

Merwan talked to me a long time ago about trust. This is a big issue when it comes to a virtual environment. Believe it or not it's more so apparent in VR than RL sad but true.

So to close out this reply for now think on what I have said and please the points I addressed earlier on as questions think on them I would like to have a well thought out reply to my questions. Primarly because a "I said so argument" won't fly with me.

Sincerely, Shadow Weaver

Close. Actually it's closer to the truth to say “Democracy, to be moral, must guarantee the rights of the minority.”

There are plenty of democracies – including the US – that "work" but have a hard time remembering that the people who DIDN’T win a vote should still be cared for and about.

I am not bashing you for using it, only pointing out that you have consistently bashed others for making personal attacks, then turned around and did so. I am not in a weak position - I am not passing judgement on any of it, I am calling you on the fact that you have criticized others ad nauseum about personal attacks. It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, something you are quick to dismiss someone as. It has to do with not being a hypocrite. Ulrika or Kathy saying something to you makes it fine for you to demean Kathy's intelligence, tell her repeatedly how stupid she is? If you are fine with that, then cool, but don't begin to lecture others about lashing out when you are hardly any better.

Funny I thought the US was a Republic with a Democratic process of elections for representation. Not only that The US is a Republic with a Democratic process protected by a Dictatorship..

Shadow

or would it be an oligarchy disguised as a republic protected by a dictator playing the role of a president pretending to be the voice of the common man who believe that he was voted in by way of democratic process....

Hey! quit reading my mind...hehe

Guaranteeing the rights of the minority is exactly what democracy does not do. By definition democracy is rule by the majority. I remember when I was in a lecture, our professor described democracy as three wolves and a sheep voting on what will be for dinner.

In this class we continued with the discussion of a republic, which Shadow pointed out in another post is what the U.S. actually is. One of the ideas behind a republic is that there will be central guiding principles and individuals that will serve in the best interest of the people when majority rule does not. The drawback is if the republic is infiltrated by individuals who wish to use it to serve their own financial and ideological interests before that of the republic's.

Thus, there needs to exist a check for democracy and check for misuse of the republic. Again using Nberg as an example, we created a body which is elected by vote (democracy), a body which is selected by skill (meritocracy), and a body which is selected by productivity (union). This attempts to balance the drawbacks of mob rule, snob rule, and job rule.

While it may seem like a technocrat's delight, it is in fact quite simple to implement as people naturally tend to congregate into each group. It also has the added benefit of attempting to address the shortcomings of democracy and republics from the very beginning. Thus the whole system does not exist as one to serve financial needs but to provide checks and balances against system exploitation.

~Ulrika~

Very well put Ulrika and I like the Wolf n Sheep thing since I am a Wulf at heart.

Anyway, yes this is all very true. As my professor stated in college Comunisim was the greatist governmental system ever written however, its enactment was poorly executed.

Does this mean there ever will be a "Perfect" government I think not.

However, you have to consider the purpose of a Government and that has yet to be answered by anyone. Especially its purpose within the confines of Second Life.

I won't drone on this time as I usually do. But this whole context of wanting a governmental system in SL for the entire populace, that question needs answering first.

Again, What would be the purpose, not the goals, but the purpose of a government in Second Life?

Kathy,

Shadow asked some very specific questions related to how self government would be a benefit to all people in Second Life and I would seriously like to see what your responses to them. It would help me to understand your plan better if it were defined with real world examples as opposed to academic context.

If there is something in your proposed plan that would offer a real benefit Second Life residents outside of zoning and policing (which is too controversial to actually be considered a benefit), then it would really help to know specifics.

Damn, Shadow! You can be wordy, eh? This may take me a few minutes.

I am not worried about whether LL will listen to us or not. That seems to be something they want to do. In fact, it is a requirement for my plan to work. Not only do I think they will listen, but I expect them to answer, too. In public and often. Basically, this elevates at least part of our communication with the Lindens to a public and national level. A group[‘s] concern can go straight from the local members to the Meetings and to the Lindens, all the time being published nationally for all to see and consider. The Lindens are very bright people. They will be glad, I’m sure, to answer those things they are able to answer. And they will not be against the improvement in publication/distribution of their answers and rulings. The fact that a history is being kept by the Meeting will finally fix another problem I’ve had issues with. Now, when the Lindens rule something, it won’t disappear into some forum archive (or non-archive) and become subject to the wear and tear of people’s memories. Now, we can just look it up.

By the way, I do not intend this body to have anything to do with griefing, or any other police matter. Perhaps it can be a matter of discussion, or a concern raised by a Group, but this body will only engage in voluntary arbitration, not criminal matters. Those matters belong to the lindens and are theirs to handle.

As for the statement by Robin, I’ve looked at it and it basically says that Linden Lab has no intention of forcing government down our throats. Frankly, they don’t need to. We will eventually do it to ourselves. A great deal of my design in this model is meant to put a benign but useful “government” entity in place as a block to some other more repressive form. I strongly feel that this model will help fulfil our growing needs to such a degree that it will preclude any other government above the local level. And I’ve left the design subject to modification only by unanimous approval, so that it can only change it’s nature when needed – not in response to someone’s whimful redistribution of power.

I don’t think the Neualtenburg experiment is anything like the national model I’m proposing. And I wouldn’t expect the Lindens to be directly involved in it. I also wouldn’t expect them to react to it and change the original goals just because it scares someone or even fails. I don’t think Neualtenburg was what the Lindens had in mind when they wrote self-gov into the CS.

I’ll say again, I think we have self-government already. Mostly in our local areas and groups. My model merely gives them a national voice.









The RL justifications for Governments only barely apply here in Second Life.

We are never short of food, shelter, or even life. We are never at war with Third Life, and there is no need for national defense. The infrastructure is already the top priority of our kind dictator, and we have only minor immigration problems.

So, that is exactly why what I propose is really NOT government. It is a lot closer to ADDing a branch to the government (dictatorship) we already have. This is a branch meant simply to provide a body where the People can speak – not one-on-one with a Linden, or to the restricted and vociferous Forums – but directly to the nation and to the King in public.

How to tell if it justifies its own existence? Simply see if everyone involved finds it useful and helpful. By the nature of its structure, the only people who will be involved will be those who find it valuable. And since it’s only “action” is to give those participants a voice, I believe it’s actions will always be justified. As soon as they aren’t, it will no longer be able to act.







I think the main concern you have here is that there is power even in the secretary’s pen. It’s true. If 20 groups speak, and the Meeting works out one message to present to the Lindens and the Public, there is a lot of room for subversion, power, coercion, and mis-representation. This is why my model does not do it this way.

Let me clarify. The representative nature of this body is in its acceptance of all representatives sent to it from the Groups. If a rep is certified by his group, he can say what he’s come to say. Then, his speech is published – WITHOUT EDIT – in the Meeting Minutes. One of the points of this body is to give every rep the same status regardless of what type of group he comes from, or how many members he has. So, whatever he presents will be published pure. (He better run his own spell-check.)

If there are discussions among the reps at the Meeting, the complete minutes are published – WITHOUT EDIT. The secretary’s role in the Meeting is not much more than cutting and pasting.

If there are any dicisions to be made by the Meeting as to questions or statments to the Lindens FROM the Meeting, then those are approved unanimously by all the reps. If there is disagreement, then the proposal is rewritten with the dissent in mind. If there is still dissent, then the dissenter is asked if he insists on blocking the proposal, and what changes need making for him to agree. If he chooses to insist, then the proposal is tabled. If he chooses to stand aside, then it is passed on and published – WITH THE DISSENT INCLUDED, if the dissenter decides to do so.

So, there will not be any statements made unless all “40 people” agree on what they are saying. And the public will always see what was said. And the groups will be able to judge for themselves how their reps are doing. And no one is silenced by the majority.

This is the kind of governmental freedom that comes fairly easy when you don’t have to do the nasty police and enforcement work that we intend to leave with the Lindens If we had to deal with local government, law enforcement, taxes, banning, zoning and all that stuff, we would obviously have to create a much more restrictive government. But, by leaving all the power (except that wielded by the collective people) where it already is, we can focus on our purpose – which is communication, discussion, and facilitation.

And it makes it a lot easier for the People to trust that that’s our ONLY purpose.

Chris, I could very easily refute your assertion again but have chosen to yield to Shadow's request out of respect for him. Too bad you didn't do the same.

Kathy, I recognize your tactic but I have to say that it was downright insulting and nasty. I ask you to consider that you would have had a much more positive response had you not attacked everyone in your opening. In my pinion it was unnecessary to do so.

As for Ulrika, her version of what happened is a half-truth. Here are the 3 threads that apply. I suggest anyone interested in the REAL story to read it for themselves.

Church thread

Red Staters meet the World

Hamlet, Ulrika and Neualtinburg Thread