Decentralization: self governance and the end of *.cracy

First and foremost -- forget everything about any *.cracy and *.archy you can think of. They all suck, none of them work, and all of them have failed. And yes, include democracy in that arena too.

The *.cracies and *.archies are systems of central leadership that were meant to manage the people and the economy they live in. This means they stimulate the trading of commodities, production and trade of goods, and policing to protect it's citizens. No matter which way you look at it, every *.cracy and *.archy has a central body or person that ultimately controls it or several positions which do. Every system can be subverted and used to do some tremendous things.

One they have in common is the egotistical idea of "leader." Which is an ancient ancient ancient concept. So ancient that today, many layers of society are blindly rebelling against the notion in so many obscure and abstract ways that we have no idea what the hell we're doing sometimes... think about the attacks on the middleman and management, the tall fences we erect around our homes, the lack of goodwill to strangers, and the more apprent argument, "nobody tells me what to do."

Hell the Internet itself is a big bleaping sign of this ideology.

Which brings me to the point of discussion I'd like to incite with this thread: decentralization. Communication systems like the Internet connect the thought processes and flesh out the human collective consciousness into a more permanent format that can become open for discussion. The poliferation of memes can be seen as a proof of this function -- they now spread further and faster than ever, and even modify themselves and create offshoots, but are on a medium where they'll never fade away entirely -- they are permanent. The Internet also allows a higher level of access to the rest of humanity (albiet in a still socially awkward way) -- greater participation in politics and memes is possible at the leisure of each person... all these systems could potentially replace townhall community meanings with online and continuous discussion between all people.

Before I ramble on with one entirely-too-long paragraph, what I mean to say is that decentralization is an important step in the development of a new form of governance -- self governance. Transparent systems that remove the power from a central group or person(s) to everyone -- now lets not skip to the arguments just yet. The idea is that every person wants to control their own life, and we all understand that there are certain conventions we must follow in order to keep the economy running and innovation improving. In a decentralized environment we can continually modify these conventions at the participation of all, allowing chaos to organize itself as it does in nature. Therefore instead of a central system imposing laws and regulations on the masses, the masses impose them on themselves which keeps anyone one person or persons from "controlling" any other.

For the purposes of this thread however, lets move it over and keep it in the context of SL -- decentralization of RL power obviously has some large hurdles and should be discussed in the Off-topic forum.

Now finally the closing issue:

How do we govern ourselves? What systems will allow us to decentralize and distribute the power to each individual?

I've already suggested that live-help is one such system. I also proposed a decentralized abuse-reporting system that adds classifications to problems and distributes a vote to a random sample of residents. Once enough votes have been received; the database of collected information can be used to begin generating weighted results or automatic resolution systems.

What do you think?

As a Libertarian Im all about decentralization.

The government the governs best, governs least.

People need common sense, if they want someone to tell them what to do, well Im available, and can be quite bossy sometimes.

I'm a closet anarchist with a firearm collection...There should be no governments, no where, no time.
I was pissed when there was no Millenium Bug crisis at the end of 1999. Man, all I wanted was to be able to drive around in my converted monster truck, wearing nothing but a thong, football pads, & a mohawk....Killing people for their food and fuel....
Man, that would be great...

The basis behind any practical system of government is an illusion, but as long as people believe in it it works.

When we look at the basis for other people's governments, such as divine kings, we tend to find them rather laughable, but democracy is not really much less of an illusion. To work efficiently, the best form of democracy to date is a representative democracy, where we nominate members of society to run the country for us. Their's obviously a reasonable gap between the ideal - that the country is run by the people - and the practice here, since for example only those with a reasonable quantity of material resources can afford to run for presidency (in USA for example).

HOWEVER, an efficient respresentative democracy is the best system of government for us that we have found so far. Note that I am NOT stating that it is the best system of government for any people, it just happens to correspond to our particular philosophical mindset at this moment in time. It's perfectly conceivable that other people would actually PREFER a more religious-based government, for example.

Addressing the proposition of this thread, which is decentralization of government so that everyone can contribute, here's the thing: it's been done before. And it failed. Catastrophically.

There was an event quite recently that we call the French Revolution. This is actually quite misleading, because it was actually several events, spaced not so far apart, over the course of several years. Looked at from two hundred years or so in the future, we kindof squish it all together and call it one single thing, but there really were several discrete episodes, over four or five years.

The French revolution went like this:
- bourgeoisie (rich commoners) gang up with the King against the Nobles
- this goes all ok
- however, to do this they introduce the idea of Equality throughout the entirety of the French population (writings of the Enlightenment philisophers, such as Voltaire, and the whole feelings in society which went hand-in-hand with this)
- the rest of the commoners ("Tiers etat" saw what the rich commoners ("bourgoisie" had done, and were like "whoa! Why cant we do that too?"
- so the commoners overthrow the rich commoners and the King
- a new system of government is set up

The important thing to note is that this is NOT the period where the famous beheadings were carried out. This is actually a period of a very pure form of democracy.

Committees were set up throughout the country. The whole population took part in these committees, and everyone was really into the whole thing.

However, committees are not famous for making decisions, and nothing ever got done, nothing ever got decided. Noone could ever make a decision.

In parallel with all of this, the rest of Europe wasnt sitting by passively, idly watching: they were at war with France. The rest of the Europe basically means the Kings and nobles throughout the rest of Europe who were kindof unhappy about the possiblity of being overthrown. (I stress however: there were no particular beheadings yet).

Still, there was a war, decisions needed to be made, and werent being.

So what happened is that this very pure, decentralized democracry gave way to a new dictatorship called the Jacobeans. People willingly let the Jacobeans come to power because it was clear that someone needed to take the reigns of power and make decisions, and the Jacobeans were quite willing to do so.

... and now we enter the period of massive beheadings and so on: the Terror, as the Jacobeans consolidated power, made people go to War and so on.

... and the point of all that I just wrote, well the points, are:
- politics is *really* complicated; the only thing I learn as I get older is how little we know about politics
- pure, decentralized democracy is unstable because it is not capable of making decisions efficiently

Azelda

The problem with aaaaaaaaaaaall the *.cracies and *.archies... are not them in themselves.. it's the people.

Yes. People are the problem. There will never be a flawless system, because they all depend on flawless citizens. What will happen with a decentralised system? Hah! Self governance? Just look at what happens in a simple virtual world with no real economical problems..
I don't think that's really the way to go. I know I'm generalizing alot, mostly because I'm at work and have no time to indulge in phylosofical debate. But anyone that can closely observe the magic of social interaction amongst human beings knows that in the end, what I'm saying is true.

Post edited for re-thinking.

Oh let me assure you, I do observe human interaction closely.

I won't quote Az's post entirely, but will adress it the best I can:

Certainly that is what happened. And it is true that in a democratic system, complete decentralization of power becomes ineffective at affecting change. However to polarize that perspective, a system of central power inevitably leads to egotistical and short-sighted changes.

I'm suggesting that we need to look past the current system of democracy. We need to look at how things are running now in SL (probably specifically at abuse reporting) and how we can take away the burden that a potential 17000 reports a day or more could be made on a company staffed by little over a dozen individuals. Even democracies as we know it distribute this part of "governance" to a committee or organization seperate of the main ruling beauracracy or institution...

but this doesn't sit will in a situation we have in SL. 90% of the population is strongly against core power being given to their peers -- which is perfectly legitimate. We all started here as peers and equals and so it should remain that way as long as we can log in and log out and pay for our portion of the space in this virtual environment.

What we need is a system that moves that power from a core group to the community at whole -- a system that will allow each of us to become the arbitors of ourselves while maintaining the effectiveness that was apparently lost in a democratic system.

It's a little far-out thinking and will obviously take a long time to figure out, but it is a necessary dilemma and better to think it out now than at the last minute, non?

No polotician here but, this sounds good. One major problem:


Now lets subtract the whole political system for a second, and assume that thier really isn't on in SL and people are pretty much free to do as they chose, hmmm this seems familiar.

Now what is your "idea" of a rational sollution to Problem #A?

That's in conflict with MY "idea" of a rational solution to Problem #A!

Now to the governing of ourselves: Your a rational openminded and fairly well educated individual. I, on the otherhand, am a snotnosed spoiled brat geek, and I'm not concerned with openminded rational, only that I get my way, period.

So let's say you bring it to the forums: You post to try to resolve an issue with some civillity. Even a third, totally indifferent party joins in to try to assist in a positive rational manner. Here comes another, loves the drama, and adds to the flaming to or fro.
Me, being the person I am, seem to be much more interested in bickering and responding to senseless rhetoric between nincompoops than find a reasonable solution.

As a "self governing" society, how do we figure out who's right, or more reasonable, and who gets the say-so?

Surely common sense should prevail but, what's common sense to you, I gaurantee, will not be common sense to others, no matter how logical your point of view.

Would be great if everyone involved could act in an open-minded mature fashion. Reality check: This will NEVER be.

But please continue, I think this is an outstanding venue and oppertunity to discuss, what could even be defined as "revelutionary" ideas. Who knows, a couple a geeks (Imma nerd by nature here, no offense to the Geek Nation ) my devise the "perfect" government, be able to have a viable testing ground, and some day change the way humanity governs itself all together!!!!

All so very true. Which makes this a difficult subject.

In any resolution the greatest difficulty is finding the common ground which will nurture peace and a positive resolution of the conflicts at hand -- bickering and selfish POV's are the antithesis to this approach... so how can we avoid that?

As for the common-ground thing, from what I can deduce -- it's the placement of authority in the economic structure unfolding in SL. So... where should it lie? Where can it lie? And what are the possible ways we can see a resolution to the issues this conflict represents for everyone involved?

As for educated... count me out. I never made it past one year of college.

You got it. If there was ever to be a leader with truly a good heart and good intentions, he/she would quickly be torn apart and eaten alive by all the interest groups. People in general are selfish and self-serving. Of course they are many exceptions, but too few to make a difference in the world, as history shows.

- T -

Hmmm........I work all day. I feed the daughter...I catch up with husband on HIS day. I relax with him....and when I want ME time...I log into Second Life. My chosen form of escapism. I write a few messages to friends inworld.......I do a little shopping....fly around and look at all the new builds........maybe pop by a club and do a little dancing. Land at "home" and build some more.....(home is starting to look as I want it to). I occasionally find myself tutting at certain builds........hate them........I occasionally get harrassed by the odd idiot. Fine...I bounce them.......or tp away.
After I've relaxed and enjoyed my stay......I log out.
Is it perfect? No.
Is there ANY major form of irritant that REQUIRES more input from "random samples" of core players....or other players period. Erm.........to me....no.
I pay my tier fee. I'm happy overall with what I have.
It works.
Sometimes, I truly feel that we look for a problem to fit a solution to.
I guess that's the nature of an open ended system.
And the BEAUTY of an open ended system, is that it can be structured to suit ALL.
So if you want a form of governance.....self....anarchist.......socialist.......zugzwangist....whatever 'ist...... `achy, or other......cool....you have the opportunity to develop it.
Bottom line...is that there MUST remain the opportunity for fee paying players to enjoy the system as is.......
My tuppence ha`penny.

I'm not sure what's being discussed is about an inworld government... is it?

---- But I agree with this being an outlet from real life rules and laws..

Very true, and that's perfectly fine.

Perhaps we need a system so transparent that should you not require it, it won't bother you; but if you do need it -- then it's there.

It sounds like you don't have many issues when you log in -- as a matter of fact, neither do I. I've never filed an abuse report yet. I've talked to customer support back in the day and got a quick response, but I can see how it's starting to flood over the abilities of the current LL resource-pool (hence a form of governance -- Live Help).

I don't think self-government needs to be something that requires an active real-time establishment. It can easily be a passive-transparent system that is there when it is required, can't it?

Tricky question -- I'm just trying to move the idea of "government" from a current paradigm that's been spreading and well... coming to the point of being 'moot.'

There's an issue still, and I'm hoping to encourage discussion beyond the paradigms we've become entrenched in. Electing some government and assigning control of things to other specific players is something that is a plan that is pretty much agreed to not work.

But the issue is still there.

So what other ways can we solve it?

The issue I believe is that arbitration of many in-world disputes is approaching a volume so large that reasonably employing enough people to field each complaint becomes ineffective to the "long term" plans for SL's growth. LL has made it obvious that they want to discover a way for the community to regulate itself.

A *.cracy or *.archy isn't going to work. That much is so far known and the majority however still believes that a resolution system must be developed somehow to handle the core problem.

So this is a discussion of different ways to do that: essentially how can we govern ourselves without giving power to a central "government?"

We need a Theodemocracy. I volunteer to be god.

I suggest we leave it to the Linden oligarchy. It's worked quite well so far, and, after all, they do own SL. I don't know if there are any problems with the whole reporting system, but If there are, maybe the consequences should be made more strict. Complete removal of stipends, and banning from SL might quickly resolve problems.

But really, why must we change SL when there is nothing terribly wrong with it anyway?

Quite the difficult question here, ehh?

I see where we're going. There seems to be a percieved need of some kind of regulatory system so that we all have a common reference point to start with. Now I for one have never needed Linden intervention as of yet but, I am disappoited in seeing the response, or lack there of, from Lindens in certain posts and threads.

I do believe that there is a fairly reasonable system in place. The bottom line is, we all wanna have fun, or be entertained in some way, and noone wants to be told what to do. They've given us tools to self govern; forums, abuse reports, modereators.. and so forth.

So what's the problem?!!!!!

PEOPLE!!!

I'm not a "down with people" person, quite the contrary, but the reality is that you will always have individuals who literally, "have nothing better to do". Unfortunately, this is thier "freedom" that they have every right to exercise, almost no matter how illconcieved.

Will a government, even self government help? We got that. Still a problem? Think of it this way; How would a society of self governing 2nd graders work out?

I totally agree.

What the problem with the current system?
Is ll asking for help?
How would a new system help?
What are the problems with the new suggested system?
What happens when the volunteers don't feel like doing their job?
What happens when the volunteers abuse their power?
and why do you guys insist live help is a form of self government? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it technical support, and a forum of community servos?

I still haven't heard many suggestions as to what can be done beyond the idea of the current paradigms of governance.

See.. this isn't just another "we need government in SL" thread.

This is a "Okay, government sucks and no one wants it, but there is still an issue at hand that LL wants us to solve," thread.

I'm really not trying to wave around a 50ft tall neon sign that says, "Rebel, rebel!" when I mention the word "governance." I mean to change the notion of the way we think about it by discussing OTHER methods than the clichees.

I'm agreeing with everyone who thinks that an "elected government" isn't going to work. It won't. Period. BUT...

Governing ourselves doesn't have to involve the boring and oft-used paradigm of some elected player-jury. That's the old idea I don't care about because really.. the majority of us agree that a system like that won't work.

So I ask again: what will?

Totally understood Icon

So let's maybe start with a list of example proplems/situations to help give reference to what the "problem" is.

I will not deny that this subject very well may be beyond my mental comprehension. I'm sure some of the best and brightest, through out history mind you, have butted horns on this same thing. And I will almost guarentee you they FAR exceeded my feble knowledge of such a subject.

But in context of "Fighting the good fight" I'll be more than happy to try to assist in any feasable sollutions that can be thought of. I can offer the "third third party" view

Listing specific, like brainstorming, might help us to isolate exactly what it is we're trying to get at.

So far I've seen a "generalized" call to figure out how to govern ourselves. This in itself is VERY broad. Just like a disease, we must observe and single out each syptom. The combination of symptons = disease, since many diseases and ailments share the same symptoms.

Then we can isolate each syptom and try to "treat" it accordinglly. Keep in mind the complexity of the issue and that we are still going to rely on different individuals "percieved" notions of said symptoms.

Sorry blahnlehhblablahhahah

On to the brainstorming Icon. Lead the my friend!!!!!

If you go back to the old thread on this subject, which was many pages long, 90 percent of posters were in favour of LL remaining as SL's 'government'. I don't see that changing much. A lot of people are prepared to leave SL if any such thing were to be put into practice. It doesn't matter what you call it - we don't want it. If LL are saying they can't cope then they must increase the number of their staff.

You refer to a potential 17k abuse reports a day. That is a wild supposition, bearing in mind, that would mean every single resident abuse reporting every single day. I have been here since July and have never abuse reported once and neither have my friends, some of whom have been here much longer than I have. I had one situation where someone was being an idiot on my land. Did I need to abuse report him? No, I just banned him from my land. Many other people handle these situations themselves without resorting to LL.

I would suggest to anyone who wants to try out government or a judicial system or whatever you want to call it, to buy a sim, invite like minded people to join and run it as they would wish. Leave the rest of us out it please.

Latonia

Maybe if we all stop thinking in terms of a government, completely throw out the word government, it may be a start

^ And this really does seem to be the concensus, at least from what I've seen.

Don't know most of the "forumers" personally, what I've seen, forum and in-game, is most are content, and don't take this the wrong way, most people who want some governence are usually already involved in some sort of dispute, bannishment, flaming and so on. Unfortunate that these people can't "govern" themselves like rational adults, and even those who try, are sometimes having to deal with someone/s how are simply excerzicing thier "freedom" to be imature and petty.

Is the Neul..burg SP!!!, not an excersize in in world government?

I will have to concer with Latonia,

Not that this isn't a possibility, just need more specifics so we know "what's broke", 'fore we try to "fix" it.

*shakes head at Latonia, "yep yep", crawls back under rock*

Was talkin bout Latonia's post

Good starting point Toy!!!!

You ladies are on the ball!!!!

Wheeeeeee