Dedicated Government Forum

Agreed.

Wow. It's actually tied. Could this mean that there is a Government forum in our future?

~Ulrika~

It's hard to have a very deep discussion about government in the main forum, because the subject is threatening to so many people. After trying a couple of times, I just don't feel like I have the permission of the community to post on the subject, and I won't do it.

If we had a separate forum, we could talk in depth about the underlying issues, such as dispute resolution. Second Life is much different than the real world, and the solution doesn't have to look anything like RL government. (Usenet has a "player-run" government which has worked out pretty well.)

In fact, I think that there might well be economic solutions to all of the issues which have been raised as justification for creating an RL-modelled government.

This new forum would at least make it clear that posting about government is not just another kind of forum griefing!

Ive watched N'Burg since iis inception........ it reminds me very much of RL government, ton of red tape and takes forever to actaully accomplish anything

I really agree with your post. I've truly enjoyed the N'berg forum, where we discuss in great detail the nuances of implementing our specific government. I'd love to complement that with a general discussion area where we could all learn from each other without the background noise.

~Ulrika~

Logically speaking, this statement is fallacious in two ways. The first is that your statement (having watched N'Burg since its inception) is false. The second is, that this construct is a logical fallacy anyway known as the appeal to authority. You're using your falsely claimed authority (having watched N'Burg since its inception) to make an argument (there is a ton of red tape).

In fact this project has accomplished an absurd amount of work in its short life including the construction of a complete medieval Bavarian city with over 50 structures, a group forum with 116 threads and 1,758 posts, a dedicated web server with 246 files and 5769 lines of code, a custom vendor system with online reporting, a complete constitution, 20 unique themed items for sale, and SL's first and only anti-Bush demonstration.


It's odd that I'm in the position of setting the record straight, as I'm not even an elected official in city. The topic of government always comes up when members are busy with RL. A few months ago, when I wasn't feeling well, I didn't log in for over six weeks.

~Ulrika~

* snap *

Well, I haven't voted, because out of the choices, none really fits me. I will likely just vote in support of a new forum to filter all of the similar posts togeather. To each their own

Now, I have a question about this quote:



I'd be interested in hearing more about this, because at first glance, it seems sorta counterintuitive. I own 1024 meters of land, and I accept that I am paying more per meter in tier than someone who twice as much. You say that you'd want the tier cost to be "flat" at least. Does that mean that you'd rather the tier be progressive? What motivation would there to be to own land for projects, if you wree paying increasingly more? It would seem to result in a massive decline in projects and impressive builds, as well as a massive drop in the value of the Linden and a glut of land available on the market. Sounds like the makings of an economic bust.

Now, I could be missing something, and probably am. I am truely and sincerely interested in learning more about this, so if there is a post, let me know. It's just an interesting comment

--BL

That's a wonderful question.

Converting land-use fees from $US to $L, land for someone on the bottom tier pays L$7.81 per m^2 per month and someone on the top pays L$1.25 per m^2 per month, a factor of 6.25 difference. If the bottom tier was the same cost as the top tier, it would only cost US$1.60 per month for 512 m^2 of land. In essence it is the many small landowners which subsidize the cost of the land for the few large landowners. This inequity contributes to the problem, where a few large land holders control most of the land for sale and rent in the game. (The regressive land-use fee is a contributor to an exponential distribution of wealth and land ownership in SL.)

Flattening the land-use fee would eliminate much of the benefit that makes land speculation and land renting profitable, allowing small land owners to compete equally for resources in the marketplace. It would also eliminate many single-owner group builds (enormous estates) as you stated. It's a tradeoff between the two systems -- one is equitable and the other relies on small land owners to subsidize large builds.

When I alluded to progressive land-use fees, I was specifically thinking of the second phase of our governmental experiment (N'berg). Initially we intend to pay for the sim as a whole and pass the savings onto all the land owners regardless of the amount of land they own. However, in order to prevent a few owners from purchasing the entire sim and thus having a detrimental effect on the political system which is run by citizens, I have been contemplating the idea of instituting a progressive land-use fee for land holders above a certain threshold as a disincentive for controlling to much land in a single sim. Interesting, eh?

As for the effect on LL, if a flat or progressive tier system were implemented, I imagine it would wreak havoc on land prices (and destroy most land barons), changing the face of the game. I would say this is not an option for LL, as it would alienate many big investors. Instead I feel that taxes should be imposed on land which is purchased, subdivided, and then turned over rapidly for a profit (this would only effect 0.1% of land sales).

~Ulrika~

Well I guess you've all 'achieved' something.

Now if someone would set up some truely useful government there might be a point in discussing it. I suggest you check out ideas on bonded traders, adjudicators and voluntary tribunals for conflict resolution. This kind of stuff might actually, you know, be useful to people

*me plays the same old violin*

I can't speak for other governments out there but we are implementing bonded traders and voluntary tribunals for conflict resolution. We're using a combination of a mandatory adherence to RATE along with a deposit to act as a financial incentive to conform. We hope to, you know, "achieve" something useful for people.

~Ulrika~

All of these things can and should be implemented as contracted services. There is no need to impose a government (and all the baggage that comes along with it) upon us to accomplish them.



What resources? Land is not a scarce commodity in SL. There can be as much of it as LL is willing to open. It is precisely as costly as people are willing to pay for it and LL closely monitors the situation. Unfortunately, the system is open to being gamed, and where an ability exists, someone will step in to take advantage of it.



Indeed, flat-taxing would impose socialism upon the residents of SL. In the current format, if an individual wishes to purchase a sizable piece of land, LL grants them a bonus for investing more of their RL dollars into SL. Since land is not a scarce commodity, this hurts no one.

What is a 'single-owner group build'? Land is either single owner, or it is group owned. If you mean land that is owned by a group that consists of a single person who is gaming the system to get the 10% extra land bonus that groups are granted, then I agree that should be done away with. One person is not a group. The group bonus is meant to allow people an added bonus for working with each other, not as a means for LandBaron to squeeze just a little more landholding ability from the system. This is a change needed to the GROUP system, not the land system.

In my opinion, ‘enormous estate’ is a loaded code phrase meant to make the reader think the estate-holder is living the life of champagne wishes and caviar dreams... and socialism then suggests "If all the proletariat can't have it, neither can you!"



I tend to agree with this sentiment, but only so far as I feel that large-scale land purchases at the LL auction are currently beyond the means of the individual who only wishes to purchase 1/8, 1/4, or even 1/2 a sim for their own use. The current system is being gamed by some folks to their own advantage which means the person that wants land for their own use must then pay higher-still prices. I am not opposed to people making a profit, but price-gouging is in bad form.

I do not currently have a solution to this issue, but my instinct tells me taxes are the wrong way. Perhaps it is the ability to perform a quick turnover that needs to be curtailed, and some sort of system forcing land to be held for some period of time before it can be resold would be fairer to individuals and real groups looking for land to actually use. I don’t know though, even that stinks a bit of socialism.

-Ghoti

One doesnt need to be a member of N'Burg to be able to watch what has been going on since its inception, thats a fallacy on your part. I have read the daily posting in the N'Burg Forum and if anyone does that it becomes very clear that there is a lot of red tape to go thru.
As far as you not being an elected member of the goverment I sometimes wonder why over 90% of what you want becomes part of the N'Burg government. Actually I dont wonder why its obvious why

Excellent Ghoti! I've been looking forward to talking to you about this in the forums but it always seems like we're missing each other. You always have such good insight.

That is an opinion, Ghoti. Services can be provided by either a public or private entity. Personally, I don't have the time to run around, assemble, and pay for various services. I much rather would have them just provided for me in the area where I purchase land. That's my opinion.

This is false. Socialism is not defined as flat taxation. As an aside socialist constructs are critically important in RL as a mechanism to providing services (health care, food, education) to the relatively poor (earning less than the median income). It is a very good thing. (If we had a Government Forum we could spawn a discussion on Socialism.)

That's exactly what I mean.

I actually had an enormous single-owner private estate in my mind when I wrote that, so it was not rhetoric although I admit it's anecdotal.

You tend to wax Prokofy here rebelling against imagined Socialism, even going so far as using Communist terminology ("proletariat" and a fabricated quote to cast a negative light on it. There's nothing in my post whatsoever that had anything to do with Socialism. I'm discussing Government.

Agreed.

As far as I know, I'm one of the few SLers who has ever suggested a suite of solutions to the problem. I should post a poll and see which one has more support. Perhaps it would bring forth more suggestions.

There it is again. You've injected a negative comment regarding Socialism into your reply how many times now?

Remember, Soviet states have taxes, Capitalist Democratic Republics have taxes, Totalitarian regimes have taxes, Monarchies have taxes, and Social Democracies have taxes. I think your obvious (and in my opinion misplaced) aversion to Socialism is leading you to conclusions by way of illogical arguments. I recommend shock therapy -- avoid the use of the word "Socialism" in all your Governmental replies.

~Ulrika~

It's because we're a democracy. That's exactly the point of our experiment.

In our system I submit proposals and bills which are then voted upon by the government. I've had at least one bill that I was a long-time supporter of shot down (shorter terms for representatives).

You'd know this if you were actually keeping up with the group, which you obviously are not.

~Ulrika~

Your assuming, Ulrika. I do keep tabs on it
Although most of it is a total bore and seems to go nowhere for weeks..... simply said, I do what I want on my land and do it quickly.. I dont want or wish to wait for any government approval for anything, I basically already have that it's called LL

This is exactly why I am pleased with our little dictatorship and do not wish to see the inmates running the asylum. This reads like someone read their moveon.org propaganda and decided to apply it in the SL world.

Please explain how scaled tier rates means that 'small landowners' subsidize the large landowners. Those of us in the higher tiers simply are receiving a quantity discount. It is not like there is this great unwashed middle-class that is paying for infrastructure, defense, welfare and politician salaries.

The major contributor to the exponential distribution of wealth in SL is that there are some who buy $L's online and others who are content to make what they can without resorting to pulling out their real Visa or Paypal account.

The problem with government in SL and in RL is that people invent issues and problems to justify the existance of their position.

The notion that SL government is so potentially dangerous that we have to keep people from discussing it is contrary to the spirit of Second Life; which is after all an on-going experiment in virtual community.

The fact that there are a significant number of people who would use this forum is ample justification for creating it.

I am glad you finally decided to respond to one of my posts. To some it might appear I am anti-government, but I am not. I am against the imposition of power of the perceived group over the individual.



Agreed, is so far as everything anyone says here is their opinion. In the future, when reading my replies, please prefix everything with 'In my opinion,'... that should make life easier for the both of us.



This sounds to be more of an organizational issue. What if the services were available at a one-stop shop... think of it as a Community Services Mall. A government solution entails ONE solution for all where as contracted services would be open to competition. This in no way prevents a community from forming around a piece of land (I'll call it 'Landville') and establishing these services by mutual individual consent to be governed. Landville could even then contract out some of these services... perhaps Landville has some folks that are extremely skilled at arbitration. They could contract out that service and bring monetary profit to themselves and their community. This service would be by contract with both parties agreeing to abide by the letter and spirit of the contract including terms for breech of contract.



Agreed. Would it be too far as to suggest Socialism is summed up in the phrase "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few"? The dictionary.com definition is "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." But then, their definition of 'anarchism' is not spot-on. How do you define socialism?



In your opinion. Personally, I feel if people were allowed to reap the profits of their own labor (as opposed to earning only a small percentage of these profits in the form of wages paid by the boss) and could spend those profits as they see fit (instead of being taxed and in essence told 'you must spend it here') there would be a whole lot less poverty in the world. People would get exactly what they worked for. IMO, this is pretty much a lost cause in the real world as it stands today. We're not talking about the real world here, though, we are talking about governance in SL, where poverty only exists in that Bambi (no particular Bambi in mind here... its just a name) can not afford more blingbling on her LL stipend. Bambi also has the ability to work in SL for more L$ to supplement the stipend. She only remains poor if she is unwilling to engage in profit-earning activities (and by this I mean anything from winning the pot at Tringo, to making and selling content others are interested in purchasing, to selling sexual favors).



IMO, a 'Government' forum suggests we need to impose a government upon the residents. However, I would not be opposed to a 'Political Theory' forum where differing opinions and options could be discussed and adopted by groups wishing to be governed. Its semantics, but I think an important distinction.



What (if anything) do you find wrong with individuals having the means to own large amounts of land for their own use?



I find all real world implementations of Socialism (indeed, most government systems short of anarchy) flawed in that they remove power from the individual to a greater or lesser extent. To remove power without the consent of the person who's power is being removed (regulated/governed) is IMO is the worst kind of wrong.

I used the term 'proletariat' when perhaps I should have simply said 'the masses'. I admit I baited that paragraph with a bit of vitriol specifically to get a rise out of people, much in the way you yourself appear to do sometimes, in my opinion.



We agree on the problem. Let's see if we can find a solution that works without abridging the rights of the individual.



Go for it. I would be happy to engage in that discussion.



Hmmm... three, four times?



I pick on Socialism, indeed, but I paint Socialism with the same brush as Fascism. I am opposed to all forms of totalitarianism.



Did it help you any?



Agreed. I'll avoid using the word "Socialism" unless specifically discussing that system.

-Ghoti

(edited because I suck at formatting quotes properly)

from Ghoti:
IMO, a 'Government' forum suggests we need to impose a government upon the residents. However, I would not be opposed to a 'Political Theory' forum where differing opinions and options could be discussed and adopted by groups wishing to be governed. Its semantics, but I think an important distinction.

100% agreed...I voted #4, but it should have been stated better.

In the end, there is no good form of government currently in the RL world. Every one of them sucks horribly. My big complaint with any of the variations of socialism or communism is that the bosses friends end up in luxury houses, funded by the masses living in mid to abject poverty. It is an obvious fact that the US and similarly democratic countries have an overall higher standard of living.

I'm not advocating a democratic system either, because it has just as many faults as the previous two mentioned.

The only system I am willing to remain in SL under is the one we have right now. Period.

I will not live in a sim controlled by anyone in anyway other than SL.

I will not play any game where a player has any authority, other than on his own property to remove me if he disagrees with my behavior.

The only system of "government" acceptable in any way, shape, or form, is the relationship I currently have with SL. They want my money, so they have my interests at heart. No citizen government will ever achieve this, no matter how benevolent they claim to be. I do not know any of the people involved in this. I simply and completely distrust anybody who would claim to have my best interests at heart, whom I am not paying to do so. There is no other reason for them to.

I will be the first to admit LL is overextended, and doing a very poor job on a few particular things, especially with regard to griefers. None of these things would be in any way facilitated here.

I note Ulrika is already starting a bit of personal bashing, with regard to Ghoti's discriptive use of the word socialism. But so many of the things Ulrika is saying do sound very socialistic. They are put in a flowery way, to make them sound appealing, an obvious charm in his/her personality.

You want to discuss a government, have fun, its your time. You want to actually install one in SL....NO. You dont have the qualification, no matter how flowery your speech, how good your ideas, or whether it would work on particular issues. In the final analysis, you have no long term reason to please me, the customer.

On a side note, the small landowner IS financing the big guy. While LL can create more landmass, each bit of landmass requires server usage, which costs RL money?? Or are we ignoring that obvious fact? So the guy who owns a small plot pays 6.25 more for his plot than the big guy, thus paying more of the server cost to LL. Amazing how easy it is to get sidetracked in this manner

[EDITED: for spelling....]

For some services that does work! For instance, in our city, services are provided by a nonprofit cooperative, when it makes sense. We have our own vendors and online sales reporting, yet we are also working with a for-profit company to modify their on-line sales service to report to our shared server.

There are some services which can't be provided by external companies. Those tend to revolve around binding arbitration, building codes, city planning, and long-term planning. Those are best handled by those who live in the city. In the case of arbitration, it is only binding if it occurs within the city by the government comprised of members of the city. This is precisely what a government is for.

This is verifiably incorrect. In a system without redistribution of income, wealth will accumulate in the hands of a very small percentage of people. It's a mathematical certainty. Systems must be designed from the ground up to address nonlinear (exponential) trends in society and the elimination of tax does not do that. (This is a very complex subject. I can come back to it later.)

I like it!

People should be free to own as much land as they want, provided they pay the same amount for it that we all do. I do not like the fact that they pay so much less than the small land owner. Pay your fair share I say. I mean, surely as someone who dislikes taxation to benefit the poor, this inverted taxation which benefits the "rich" (those paying a lot of RL money) must drive you mad.

While I understand that the regressive land-use fees in RL are a bulk discount, in SL they equate to an extreme (factor of 6.24) regressive tax. While this enables large builds by lone individuals it also enables a lot of problems we have with land reselling and leasing. If I ran LL, I would have had flat land-use fees, bulk discounts with a cap and no group loopholes, or a tax on capital gains for large volumes of land sales. Right now the system is so unnaturally stilted in the favor of large land owners and so unregulated, that it's almost comical.

An individual has rights only so long as those right do not interfere with another individuals rights. Extrapolating to large societies and applying the concepts of utilitarianism one can construct cases where individual freedom must be limited to prevent harm to individuals and society. It's the difference between doing what's best for me now and what's best for us all in the future.

This is an absolutely false mutual categorization. Fascism is peripherally related to Totalitarianism, however neither of those have anything remotely to do with Socialism. I highly recommend following the links below.

Fascism is an authoritarian single-party state. Totalitarianism is an authoritarian state that attempts to control all aspects of government and private life. Socialism is a form of Democracy.

~Ulrika~

I'm beginning to realize that people don't actually understand what social democracies, communist states, or democracies actually are! (See why we need a government forum?)

Here's a cheat sheet:

1. A list of forms of government from Wikipedia. This is an excellent starting point for all governmental discussions.
   
2. Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are socioeconomic theories, not types of political movements.
   
3. A communist state (a form of government) is barely related to Communism (a socioeconomic theory).
   1. A communist state is a single-party authoritarian state.
      
   2. Communism is a socioeconomic theory put forth as the next step beyond Capitalism and is related to Marxism and Socialism.
   
   
4. Modern social democracies are true democratic governments. They do not see a conflict between a capitalist market economy and their definition of a socialist society, and support reforming capitalism in an attempt to make it more equitable through the creation and maintenance of a welfare state.
   
5. Capitalism as a socioeconomic policy has been implemented by states which are fascist, totalitarian, socialist, democratic republics (U.S.), despots, dictators, and monarchies.

Questions?

~Ulrika~

lol well i would be careful making a sweeping statement like that Ulrika. I also think you are savvy enough to be aware that there is a far cry between the theory of a political structure and what it ends up being once it ends up out of the textbooks and in the hands of real human beings.

regardless, i think that government discussions/debates really belong in the Land/Economy forum (maybe rename it?) because that's where a lot of the "policy" discussions take place. They definitely don't need their own room.

side note: Beryl, I think that governments may take place if you see privatized second-lifes, but really that's not much different from someone buying a sim and offering opt-in membership/citizen/etc rights to whoever wants to participate. I LL ever decides to enforce a central government, there will be a massive schism in second life, a competitor will be created (this will happen anyway if SL evidences success) and a large chunk of the population will leave and go to the competitive "virtual world" platform when it launches.

my take of the old thread was that most people agreed that there was nothing wrong with opt-in communal structures, whether they be "group together to zone land" "group together to have a D/S community" "group together to dress like clowns" or "group together to attempt a new liberal democracy"....

it's only the question of one-rule for all that gets people steaming mad... liberty or death kind of thing


p.s. i do not define as "central government" the TOS regulations... whether that is enforced by LL or by some company they outsource to.

words words words words words!!?!?!??!!??


words words!!! words words words words words words words words

1. words
2. words
3. words
4. words
5. words
6. words
7. words
8. words

words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words


words words words words words words words words words


WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS WORDS!!!!


words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words

the idea of 'government' in SL is interesting!

Right now I'm living in a perfect state of anarchy in lovely edge-o-tha-grid Picnic. If we had 'representation' would our concerns, like having a big ugly edge of nothing and no telehub get addressed? none of us are rich and while some have experience, most of us are newbies* so what kind of clout would we have? What would a 'government' do for me?

Do you pro-gov peeps think you can eventually petition 'god' (LL) with prayer?** to modify the 'game' to suit your collective desires?

I'd rather have LL be a benevolent 'god' perhaps sending (or at least allowing) emmisaries to interact with us non-gods to get the flava (like everybody's favorite munchkin Pathfinder!) than have a small group of land barrons, who could buy votes, have the ear of LL over the rest of us.


*I still wear boxes.....

** you CANNOT petition the Lord with prayer!- Jim Morrision