Constitution for Linden...

[DO NOT PANIC! THIS HAS BEEN PRESENTED FOR DISCUSSION ONLY!!! THIS PROPOSED DOCUMENT DOES NOT INDICATE THAT ADOPTION IS RECOMMENDED!]




Proposed Constitution for Linden


Preamble

We, the Citizens of Linden, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution for Linden as its supreme and universal law, deriving its authority from the consent of the governed and the allowances of Linden Labs.....

...SNIP...





Interested Folks,

Please download this proposed constituion. It has been built largley on Roderick Long's Libertarian Constitution. This was chosen as the template in order to present as little interference into a citizen's rights and freedoms as possible. Pains have been taken to restrain government powers on areas that prefer not to be governed, although there are some basic provisions for those areas as well.

Due to it's Libertarian origins, this template is extremely easy to amend, and makes it extremely easy for citizens to change any Federal Law or to fire any official.

It also avoids restricting States to purely geographic boundaries. It is possible to declare a Governed State simply as an association, regardless of where it's citizens reside.

I am sure there need to be additions to the Bill of Rights. And ther are several times when numbers are mentioned that need to be considered for all types of scalability.

Please read the whole thing before deciding that something is missing, or that it is totally unsuitable. I've posted it here to raise the question of future constitutionality and to begin the discussion necessary to reach self-governance.

Thanks for your patience

Don't have time to read it now or I will be late for work but my first impression at first glance is 'ew'.

I started reading it but it will take me a while.

First couple comments:

One councilor for every 150 citizens? How do you count citizens? You mean people signed up? or people that log in regularly? Whats regularly? You realy have no way of knowing how many people are NOT logged in, if they would count.

Half the councilors are from a pool of citizens - but you don't quantify 'half'. I assume you mean there are the same number of voted in councilors as selected councilors. (The whole voted/selected thing for this council seems pointless btw)

Finally - its all good to have a set of laws that we agree on but how do we plan on enforcing these laws? Are the Lindens going to program them in (the ones that can be programmed in) ? Are we going to have a 'police force' that people report problems to? Seems like the kind of thing that will be good for a few weeks then fall apart as people stop caring.

Ummm.

1) Why do we need or want a constitution, of any sort?
2) Even if we did, woudn't we want to write it from scratch using some sort of collaborative process?

Until these questions (and those of many others) are answered by the community, I would declare this a 'false-start.'

Oracle Omega

Hey Oracle, I think this thread is our attempt to 'write it from scratch using some sort of collaborative process' Kathy's first post is a something to build from or throw away if we want.

As for why we want it... don't look at me

Although I dont like all the points in this, I really like the idea.

The users of SL deserve to rule their own government and be free. I suggest we have an event where we get together and write a constituion, and then we can script voting stations have a vote on it.

Good point. The original template did not contain ANY numbers, so all of the numbers in this draft are quantities I've created for discussion and eventual refinement. I chose 450 as three times the 150 number the Lindens like as the approximate number of people you can reasonably "know." I just picked it as a low number that should be well over the size of any "clique." I could be very wrong about that though.



I was trying to find something between the seven years the template suggested (things move slower in the real world, eh?) and having so many elections that we were always having elections. If you read a bit closer, you'll note that this model already commits us to elections for something or other every 6 months. And that is if no one brings a referendum. There obviously needs to be a balance between how long a person should serve and how often we want to vote.



Believe me, that was a question I really sweated over. But, in the spirit of discussions we've previously had around here, my understanding in that there will always be a number of groups/sims that - although this constitution attempts to set very little weight on a citizen's shoulders - don't want a part of any of it. And, although I would certainly hope there'll never be an aggressive government in the Governed States, I can't account for whether there might be one outside. One should be able to respond, even to something that bizarre. Note that none of that would override the clause (in the un-amendable section) that keeps this all within the rules set by Linden Labs. So, I wouldn't expect World War III



I know I don't, but you'll notice the taxes are limited to LESS that 5% of AVERAGE income. That means, first, that the government certainly doesn't have to charge that much. And, second, that it shouldn't be a big burden on anyone - especially if we amend this to exclude the Linden Labs stipend in the calculations. Besides, a simple majority is all that's needed to repeal any tax increase, and that's easily done since the tax increase is not allowed to attach itself to any other bill. Plus that Presidents have line item veto. The Libertarians who put the template together really didn't intend for anyone to suffer under undue taxation. In fact, in the original, the constitution called for the tax to be entirely voluntary - you could stop paying taxes and simply become a non-citizen, and then become a citizen again later if you wanted to (no idea if this included paying back taxes). I took that "fluid citizenship" out simply because I suspected most people would find it nervous-making, but it can certainly go back in if folks prefer it. If so, however, we may have to provide a process for dissolving the government for lack of funds



As a strong supporter of government support of the arts, I understand your hesitation. It's there simply to prevent the Government from using classes/training programs to propagandize against a group or other entity. I would be very glad to see this go, but could understand why some folks would prefer to keep government out of their creative endeavors entirely.



Impeachment - the act of placing a discredited politician upon a thin rail and tossing ripe peaches at him until he admits to some wrong-doing. This activity never accomplishes anything productive, but it make for great television.

No, but seriously Folks I think the Legislature is expected to handle all Federal impeachments and the process for doing so is their responsibility to determine.

Thanks for reading this draft. I think it can help us ask all the questions we need to ponder before we embrace self-governance.

Actually, you found a section I missed during editing when I was modifying the original Libretarian template for SL use. I started work on that section and laboured over a number per counselor - trying to make it something not so small as to create hundreds and hundreds of representatives later - when the population is in the tens of thousands - but not so large as to start us out at a legislative body composed of two people ;-) I resorted - again - to the magic 150 number that Linden Labs believes is the practical limit for affinity. (Recall that we are only alloting 150 slots per last name for users) The section about dividing the counselors up into elected and lot-derived was something I was actually going to remove before presenting it here. But I got so worn out thinking about numbers I fof got to rewrite that ;-) I would assume anyone would be satisfied with simply electing them.

I think citizens are defined in the document as people who are paying members of Second Life.

Enforcement is a question we'll need to think about. As I've said several times in other threads on other topics, if Linden Labs intends for us to self-govern (which they declare they are) then Linden Labs is going to have to support the governments we create. How they go about providing the tools necessary forthat is going to be interesting to watch ;-)

At any rate, I suspect that there will be two types of enforcement rise out of whatever we create. First, the only punshments that are reasonable in a gaming environment are restrictions on actions or fines. I expect to see a system of fines levied by the law and enforced by the Lindens at stipend time. Second, there may be more dramatic (though obviously less serious) punishments like firing squads, or dunking, or scarlet letters or something else of a comic nature. I NEVER see any type of enforcement that gives one player power to affect the avatar of another or to take property or land or restrict another user's ability to access the game. If there are passages that imply that in this document, we must remove them. That level of player power is probably not appropriate and would be an alarming allowance from Linden Labs.

So, I suspect that fines and drama will be the enforcement tools available to the Linden governent. It is, however, possible that the Linden government might - after appropriate legislative or judicial action - petition Linden Labs for some sort of action. Whether they comply or not, of course, is entirely up to them.

Finally, if people do stop caring - if they refuse to participate, then that is their right under this document. Then, as we've found in the United States, they will simply have to learn to live next door to whatever evolves from what they left behind.

Oracle, and Madox,

Yep. This is meant to be the first salvo in a collaboration. I chose the Libertarian template mostly for those who have fears of governemnt repression or interference - not becasue I am a Libertarian If you have suggestions on how best to impliment the collaborative process, go for it. I'm happy to adapt.

As for why have a constitution? Mostly becasue we ARE going to have self-rule of some sort. It's been written into the plans for the game from Linden Lab's point of view. I happen to believe that governemnt is best planned than organically grown. Sometimes you can get a rose out of such a process, but often you just get miserable people who bicker until they can't stand it anymore and leave.

I think it's good to plan ahead to accomadate as many of these different game-play styles and political perspectives as possible before we just rely on them all to get along.

Not me!.


Boo to that.

I signed up for a lifetime membership under the current Community Standards with the understanding that the Community Standards might be modified to deal with any new problems, but would not be radically changed.

I will not be subject to a tyranny of the majority, if a 66.6% (or whatever) majority says we need extra taxes to support a police force to enforce arbitrary rules imposed by a senate, or a 66.6% majority says we all need to wear pink tu-tus, then a 66.6% majority can go jump in a lake.

Now, if you want to go off and form your own state with it's own rules, and you want Linden-supplied methods to enforce that for your voluntary members, I have no problem with that, I might even join you. But don't start talking about everyone.

This is my opinion.

We do, however, have to keep in mind that any such vote must (by the constitution) be secret. I assume some sort of private voting tools will be coming in the 1.1 release, since they've said this is the release that gives us the beginnings of the tools we'll need

As for a constitutional "event" - I don't know if it's going to go so smoothly that an event will cover it. I suspect this will be a process several weeks long.

At this point, I'd like folks to decide whether they want to start with the document I posted or create a new one. Then, we need to go out of our way to include as many views as possible as far apart as possible. For instance, I would dearly love to find a way to create some basic rights that apply to ALL of Linden, while restricting the actual governemnt to only those sims or affinity groups who decide to join.

BTW, for those who think this level of politics is just an annoyance, remember that politics is another aspect to this game, like scripting, building, texturing. It was designed in from the start, and is still being planned for. In fact, some of us came here just for the social experiment. Like building, I expect most of us to do some (though most will eventually leave the most intricate work to those with a taste for it) and I hope everyone will at least take time to consider the future for a moment and add their comments to the discussion.

This is probably going to get heated quick, so allow me to explain my apparent pro-anarchy stance.

Why do we need laws in real life? Why do we need a government that derives it's just powers from a mandate from the masses?

Short answer, to mediate social interactions.

In SL, socail interactions are already necessarliy mediated by the game itself. You cannot be harmed or killed in any serious way, no one can steal your money (they can rip you off but caveat emptor, and see below). Property rights are governed by the game system.

So, what can someone do to you that's unfair? They can try to do things that try to impede your use or enjoyment of the game. And these are exactly the things that need to be covered (in a minimal way) by the community standards (and, for the most part are).

Now, once again, I am all for self rule, IF everyone involved agrees to be part of that community, but there must ALWAYS be the option to just leave.

EDIT:

To put it another way, and to prarphrase Oracle, what problem is this the solution to?

What is an example of a situation that would come up, that could not be covered by the broad and minimal Linden enforced community standards, that a user enforced GLOBAL constitution could cover and solve, and that would be worth having a user government around so it could solve this problem?

HAHA! WG you make me laugh

Its a good point though. Perhaps the first step is defining what determines where exactly this constitution will be in effect. Obviously assuming it applies to 100% territory of every sim is going to be a bad assumption.

Would certain sims as a whole agree somehow to adhere to it?
Would it only be valid on the land of an indivudual that agreed to adhere to it? This has bearing on renters.
Other ideas?

If people don't want to agree to this, can they do whatever they want free from reprisal? The whole enforceability thing will be trouble still.

BTW - I'm viewing this as a fun excersise to see what people come up with, and don't expect it to be serious due to the fact that you cant stop people from doing whatever they want anyhow)

Edit : places that would not like to be covered are things like a pirate themed sim, or a King Arthur sim or what have you.

I second Mr. Grimm. So much so I wanted it repeated!




Isn't there enough to do in SL already without having to control your neighbors?


fen-

This does not answer the question adequately. You imply that we need a constitution because self-rule is being imposed by the Lindens.

The nature and form of this so-called self-rule is not self evident, just because drafts a document called a 'constitution.'

Robert's Rules of Order could just as well be used for a 'base document' for self rule in a virtual world. How about the building guides for Seaside Florida? What about a petition/voting system, like Pavel Curtis implemented at LambdaMoo. To my mind these systems (and many others) are much better models for resovling community disputes in a virtual venue.

In my 25+ years of experience in online worlds, abdicating control of the TOS and/or Community Standards to the users of a virtual world has always caused more problems than it solved. There are some good pointers to the related issues in Clay Shirky's A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy, already mentioned in another thread.

Again I ask, why a Constitution? (instead of amending the CS, adopting other forms of dispute resolution, building codes, or doing nothing, etc.)

Oracle Omega

PS: As people tend to polarize on this issue, let me state for the record that I think it is critical that the community be given a strong voice in the shape of Second Life, and I know the Lindens do too: total anarchy is not commercially sustainable. They didn't say we had to have a Constitution or a user-run government.

Lets start with defining the problems we would like to resolve and determine if they are self-rule issues, or something else.

But, this is exactly what what Kathy seems to be proposing. A user constitution, that all users are subject to, and that provides for enforcement, including, one would assume, fines, suspensions and the ultimate sanction (otherwise it's meaningless).

I do not question the good intentions behind this effort, but I think it is by it's nature, a Bad Idea.

So, it's not so funny is it?

(Now if you'll excuse me, I am at work, and if I don't start doing my job soon, someone's going to notice)

Well, this may surprise folks, since I put a national constitution up here for you to look at, but I'm not a real fan of centralized government.

I would much rather there were small independent states lobbing stones at each other over walls, but then most folks wouldn't enjoy that as much as I would

In fact, it might even be interesting to continue these intermniable arguments over what is more binding: the requirement for mutual respect in the community standards or the section that tells you to watch out whne you go to an unsafe area. Of course a constitution that at least clears up the player v player expectations would make for a quieter life, I suspect.

Once again, here is the relevent section of the Community Standards that convinced me to begin this process:

--------
Governance

Wherever possible, Second Life will become self-governed. At the outset, Linden staff will be the primary 'judge and jury' and will review any reports of harassment or violations of local standards. Additionally, we are working on a set of features which will help you direct your experience including the ability to ignore chat from specific avatars. Eventually, however, system mechanisms will be put in place to allow Residents to respond to complaints or reports of unacceptable behavior. Long-term Second Life will be self-governing, relying on the broad concepts of tolerance, freedom of expression, and local community.
---------------


So, the question is not whether we'll be self-governed, but HOW. If you feel strongly that a central government should not be able to regulate your day to day life, then I - for one - are hoping you'll represent tath perspective. If you - like me - would prefer to keep a segment of the country free of government - perhaps so we can have a justification for a standing army - then I'll support you in that too.

I do not think there is going to be an option where we simply continue on as before. SOMEbody will have a governemnt. And I fear my fate under theirs more than under one I took part in forming

WG,

Read that community standards you are so fond of and check the governance section. This is LL's idea, not ours.

My plan would be more in line with allowing part of SL to be self governed and allowing the rest to be a turmoil that you want. That is not what LL says in the community standards though.

Stop making the arguement "i didn't sign up for that" because you were supposed to read the community standards and agree to them.

JV

I don't mean to be snide, I really do have to get back to work, so I will respond by partially quoting you, with some emphasis added.



So, my reading of that is that there will be tools to enforce your rules on your land, not that everyone everywhere will fall under the rule of a world government.

EDIT:

Also:
Note, "self" not "user". So perhaps it is not that I didn't read the standards, as suggested, but that I have a different interpertation.

Kathy,

I do not think SL should be united under one gov. I am up for many gov's competing for land and resources. Much more exciting.

Also some people brought up the point of taxes. Well if what I want is implemented you won't be paying land taxes but you'll pay gov taxes. If group/gov land is put in this will work fine.

JV

Thanks for the excerpt, Kathy.

My Dad said to my siblings and I: "Someday, when you are ready, you'll take care of yourselves." That day came at very different times, and and in different forms for each of us. One of my siblings (we are all about 40 years old) has never lived more than 3 miles from my parents. I live in a different state.

You are right that the issue isn't if we will decide for ourselves what we want from our peers, but it is how we will control their behavior and when it will be implemented.

Let's answer those questions before we settle on a form of self-rule.

Oracle Omega

Re-reading your post, I disagree with instating a global government; a strict government like this would only really work for an independent state within Second Life, especially since we've already got a global government -- the Lindens and the Community Standards.

i'd just like to say that i agree with WG and Oracle. i don't see any need for this 'constitution'. is this supposed to take place of the community standards? i just don't even get it.

I am definitely for player run governments but all i think we need is a way to enforce rules within a community. thats all. once we have that then we can go and set up our own little communities and governments however we choose.

maybe this document could then be the 'constitution' of one of these future communities.

Small Localized Government, Yes



Big Gobalized Government, No


and that's all I have to say on the matter.