Aimee's important post about SL player-run democracies

Aimee Weber posted something I thought was really important. Unfortunately it ended up in the trollic thread something about anti-intellectuals. I am afraid that it will get lost in that gibberish of non-sense, so I took the liberty to repost it here (hope it's ok Aimee?

Why I thought this was really important? Because it really outlines the concern (or fear?) of those of us who oppose to a player-run government or democracy in SL. I think those who want this democracy should answer the questions she asked. Perhaps we can move from there. Else these forums will continue to become battlegrounds for these two camps, where none is likely to win (except poking each other with an anti-This/That labels).


As posted by Aimee Weber:

I have a question for the folks who strongly support a player-run democracy. Is your position based on the love of democracy itself, or the belief that a democratic system, if established in SL, would likely support your own political positions?

Example: Currently the Lindens allow us nearly unlimited freedom of speech. Would you continue to advocate and support a democratic government in SL if it actually seemed likely that the majority would vote to abolish discussion of Evolution, Abortion, Anti-Religious speech and Anti-American speech? If protection from these discussions were proposed in a Bill of Rights?

Given the progressive nature of our current user-base, this scenario seems unthinkable (and for now it most likely is). But looking at U.S. voting trends, recent gubernatorial, congressional, and of course presidential elections, it doesn't seem impossible to me.

I'm visualizing certain members of large, highly active religious organizations like the Southern Baptists catching wind of Second Life. Seeing the powerful out-reach potential (and tremendous number of people that need saving ), they begin to establish Bible study groups and advertise SL as a great way to find fellow Christians around the world. (**ADDED) Where I as going with this is, certain movements outside of SL could result in a rapid change in the political or religious demographic in SL.

Personally I think this is a hypothetical. I wouldn't want to scare (or encourage!) anybody into a particluar position. I am just curious where most people stand on this. Is it the democracy you want, or is it what you believe the democracy will give us?

This thread concerns player run democracies and should be moved to the Political Science forum.

This is one of the topics for which the Political Science forum was created, it is clearly in the wrong place in the General forum.

Those who agree can use the triangle to remind Jeska to move this misplaced thread.

In that case, perhaps it's a good idea to codify our rights now while we still have a "progressive user base." If this is something you're truly concerned about, a Bill of Rights guaranteeing free speech would probably come in handy.

While I agree that the Political Science forum might be a better place for this discussion, urging that /this/ thread be moved, when so many others have been running their course here in General, somehow doesn't seem right.

Maybe they should all be moved? Or since they weren't moved in a timely way, its "too late"?

Im not sure about the right course; glad its not me that has to make the call. But it hardly seems fair to move this thread, which might actually be useful, after having left so much other stuff running along here.

'shrug

Never said I was concerned, just that I could visualize it happening. I was mostly curious if the people advocating SL government desired Democracy, or a set of policies that they believe a Democracy will give them.

Are you suggesting we have democracy NOW to lock in a policy (the Bill of Rights) such that democracy tomorrow will find difficult or impossible to inact different policies? I am assuming the proposed Bill of Rights will be written such that it will always be malleable to SOME degree by the will of the future population. Otherwise it could be construed as a kind of opression by the folks of THIS period of history (regarded as oldbys by future users).

Oh christ, not the panties thing again!

TROLL

I fully support player run governments so long as I get to run the government autocratically; I also have the disposition of god as portrayed in the old testament of the bible which makes me ideally suited for the position. Caprecious, arbitrary, vengeful, selective about petition, randomly screwing with people's fortune in order to see how they react, kinda like the current administration now that I think of it. Nevermind.

Ok, seriously though ...

I do not think this would ever happen, because I do not think people are emotionally invested enough in Second Life for something like this to pass. Considering that a hell of a lot of people would take off if SL developed a gridwide player-run government, it wouldn't be in the best interest of Second Life to have one.

I really, really, really like this "game." I like the people in it more.

However, why does one stay? For the people or for what you can do here? Second Life having laws like -- not being allowed to protest Bush or something -- would be the very antithesis of whatever SL is (we still haven't agreed on this one). If SL turned into a Southern Baptist platform for Jesus, I would leave, but I doubt very much that I would lose contact with the people I have met here.

Since the question is directed at those who support player run democracy, only those who support player run democracy should respond, if the thread is to stay on topic.


The question of whether player run democracy is good or bad is not addressed in the thread.

Though Aimee's post is an extreme hypothetical scenerio, it touches upon a real concern, and the reason why I won't support any player-run government, or stay if one is instituted.

I know my views and opinions. I know my likes and dislikes. I know my own morals, and I live by those. They aren't up for debate or sacrifice. I have no guarentee that any player-run government won't be diametrically opposed to any of my views. I read the ToS and the CS before I agreed to them. Those rules outlined there are the only compromises I'm legally required, or willing, to make.

And to those who would suggest anyone who disagreed with the agendas of those who are so eager to rule should begin their own campaigns, my answer is that unlike them, I am not self-righteous enough to try and force my views, morals, likes and dislikes on anyone else. That's the difference between us, and yet another reason I wouldn't accept anyone else's governing.

I just enjoy my right to bite my thumb at any who want to rule the world.


It's hard to stay alive, when theres so much living to do, so much to love and so many people to learn to say NO NO NO NO to!

This thread should remain in general forum as every discussion it is directed for is happening in this forum. If it is moved then there should not be any post on politics allowed in general forum. Why were you so concerned about this anyway Sue?

I agree Snowcrash. It is what I meant by sometimes there is a fine line between policy discussions and political discussions. I think Aimee's post did a great job of appealing to all of SL.

I guess to some extent I have to excuse myself from this. I've taken the pro side of this debate primarily because discussion of government gets shouted down very quickly, and the Germanic Ice Matron's petty mindgames certainly don't help the pro cause. I believe that there are many issues within the government discussion that reach beyond the knee-jerk positions taken by the polar opposites on this subject.

If I were to describe my position on SL government, it would be anti-business rather than pro-democracy. My personal fear is that as SL evolves, the commercial aspects of SL will eclipse the other purposes to which our world can be put. As I'm sure you're well aware, Aimee, it's the capitalistic aspects of SL which seem to get real world journalists jazzed, and increasingly we're seeing newbies show up on the grid raring to make money. There's nothing wrong about that in and of itself, but I am concerned that as SL evolves, LL will cater to the heady, headline-grabbing business aspects of our world at the expense of other aspects. One specific example I would use is how LL has abandoned the events system to those events whose descriptions are written ENTIRELY IN CAPITAL LETTERS!!1! Another is the surrender of land auctions to the land barons.

So I would favor specific policies that would bar any single special interest group from having undue influence upon LL's decisions regarding SL (obviously, this would apply to groups promoting non business-related interests as well). A subset of this would be some kind of guarantee of freedom of speech to the extent that we have it today.

Based on what I've written above, I would have to say that this imagined "Bill of Rights" would not be malleable, in the sense that no one could revoke our established rights to free speech, or the checks against any single group in SL unduly influencing LL policy.

Who cares? Why does it bite your ass so much you need to post about it? Nice of you to ignore the topic to post a gripe.

Bleh

Briana Dawson

Moved to the In-world Political Science forum for further discussion.

BOO!! HISS!!!

You know Jeska, I am really upset about your move of this thread here because of request of one person, while you left dozens of political posts back at the general forum. How is this fair? I am very disappointed.

Here here! I'm going to use my FIC powers and IM Jeska about my disapointment about this!


PS: there is no FIC... any single person could do the same as I going to

Yes? how may i help you Ma'am??

The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Paperback)
by Fareed Zakaria

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393324877/qid=1127444053/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2073481-8566529?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


I highly recommend this book

Thanks Forseti, I just ordered with my Amazon 1-click I really like Zakaria's articles, I look forward to reading this book.

I also object to the handling of this. One person complains and you react .. but you leave /many/ threads on the same subject ... indeed the threads are all intertwined and almost cannot be taken independently ... to continue along in General.

Ok, so LL rejected the Bill of Rights idea - but doesn't that simply lend credence to the fact that we already have the vaunted rights we love until they are somehow limited or taken away?

So what if SL grows larger than anyone's wildest dreams, and the Baptists come - couldn't we all just migrate in-world to a cluster of islands that respect/respresent the way we want things to "be"?

If there is no government, and no codified bill of rights, for naysayers to object to then doesn't that imply that our "way of life" is equally protected from outside interference or in-world griefing? Maybe you'll get the occasional av toting a cross through a club or something but isn't that in itself a sign of real diversity?

Personally, I don't see any antidote to a capitalist-driven culture in SL until the incentive system is more broadly-based than just focused on earning/getting/spending Linden $ but that devolves into all the yada yada about reputation, stipends, prims, and such...

A government of the Lindens, by the Lindens, and for the Lindens is really the best we can hope for until the hoards arrive.