The First SL Congress?

A few thoughts (purely mine. /attaches asbestos suit/ ) on the MJW:

I imagine that a citizen-run government is very exciting to the Lindens, particularly Phil. This kind of citizen organization would seem to be part of his hopes for SL from the start. I confess that I share his excitement.

I found Phil's remarks to be very reasoned and cautious throughout. I don't think he's being given enough credit for that. I don't envision him allowing an elite group to run things in an unfair fashion. I also share Phil's hopes for Democracy.

Phil seemed to be trying to strike a balance between "hands on" and "hands off." This feels like a difficult balancing act for the Lindens. They risk being accused of favoritism on one hand and detachment on the other.

How can citizen-run government be effective and fair? How can it be more than a "class President" vanity group and less than an Imperial mandate? I don't know, but I'm excited by a healthy, open debate on the question.

I feel the strong anti-government sentiment in these forums. There's nothing wrong with that sentiment. Some great men believed that "the government governs best that governs least" and "government is at best a necessary evil." There's fire in that attitude. There's a flaming torch and a raised fist against oppression. May we never lose that fire.

To the firebrands, I might raise the example of John Q. Adams. You can read about him here, if you want: http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/ja6.html

Summary, for purpose of example: 'In 1830, the Plymouth district elected him to the House of Representatives, and there for the remainder of his life he served as a powerful leader. Above all, he fought against circumscription of civil liberties. In 1836 southern Congressmen passed a "gag rule" providing that the House automatically table petitions against slavery. Adams tirelessly fought the rule for eight years until finally he obtained its repeal. In 1848, he collapsed on the floor of the House from a stroke and was carried to the Speaker's Room, where two days later he died. He was buried--as were his father, mother, and wife--at First Parish Church in Quincy. To the end, "Old Man Eloquent" had fought for what he considered right.'

I find that moving. To state my thought in a different way, how about this quote: "If you don't turn to government, government will turn on YOU." Is citizen involvement in self-governance a right, a privilege, or a duty? We all answer that in our own way. Does the right to answer the question as we please make us free?

I think that quote is a summation of how I'm feeling about the entire issue, right now. I know how the idea of "historical inevitability" rankles some. The idea has been used to excuse great evil. But I think humans have an undeniable, historical tendency to organize, to plan, to attempt to manage our affairs. I don't see this organizational urge as inherently malignant.

On the other hand (there's that checks and balancing act again,) history also shows how self-interest and central management can realize our worst nightmares. When we forget, or deny, that we are all in it together, that we all have an equal "stake" in fairness and equality, darkness descends on us all.

I see self-governance as an inevitable consequence of human affairs. History will hand it to us again and again. Does history make us, or do we make history? Again, a deeply personal question.

To those who dread despotism and elitism, I count myself among you. If government is to come again, as it always does, and fail, as it always seems to, what should we do? Do we rail against it? Do we set ourselves as rogues and pirates, decrying law to live as we damn well please? Do we preach and practice anarchy in the streets?

Or do we do as John Adams did and put our fire to the feet of those who would govern us? Do we -become- the government and shout for fairness?

I don't think there is any one "right" answer to that question. Maybe, in here, we can have it all. Maybe there's room for all of us.

I do think that history shows us that government needs opposition. Checks and balances are essential. Oppression is always on the agenda. When we turn away, power consolidates and moves against us.

So, the MJW got Linden attention. So can we. So can you. This is not a one party system. Right now, it's a no-party system. We are in at the -beginning- of a Country, here. What an opportunity. Form your loyalties and gather your parties.

Philip has said (paraphrasing) "what's the point of a Second Life if it's no better than the first one?" I really believe he intends to let us build the life we want, in here.

If we let it be built by others, without our interests at heart, who do we have to blame?

Thats all fine and good, but what purpose does it serve? There is no mayor of internet town and if this is suppose to be internet 2.0 I dont think it needs a mayor either.... I can manage to browse around by my lonesome.

No.

-Ghoti

Robin has stated that player government will never be a requirement for anyone.

Plus, if you go read Porky's blog, he expresses in no uncertain terms that government is not his goal in creating this group, and that he wouldn't participate in one if it came into being.

So I think it's safe to say he is just trying to leverage by lobby the existing gov't - Linden Lab, and some folks are buying into it. It's a special interest group claiming to have the best interest of SL in mind, not the precursor to a congressional body.

And what is winding people up is that the two most prominent members are making exclusionary statements. Prokofy only wants content developers allowed as part of this body IF they meet some nebulous heretofore undefined criteria, and Anshe thinks that people who spend more money and time on SL should be placed into a different class - read my sig line - it pretty much says it all...

It would be more like the 11th SL Congress and probably be as successful and longlived as the previous attempts.

Yep Congress - as in the opposite of Progress

A group of people wishing to be more involved in the policy making of Second Life, lobbying to influence things that effect everyone - for the well being of all residents....

.. of course taking into account that the spokesperson holds 90% of you in disdain, as mearly consumers and players you shouldn't have as much a say in what goes on....

... another founder doesn't want you there if you are in that horrible class of people that makes things - as you already have some unfair advantage over everyone else.

.... another doesn't wish any kind of free press in attendance - as they might tell you something they don't want you to hear (perhaps like what the spokesperson REALLY thinks of you) - when one of the things on the agenda is 'transparency'

Yup.. Justice for all?

Well it depends entirely on who you are I guess

Preach on, Brother.

Ulrika for President!!!!

No No No.... Mathilde for President.

Very well put, Siggy!

The establishment of the following branches:

1. Ministry of Peace (minipax) - to be run by the residents of Rausch
   
2. Ministry of Plenty (miniplenty) - granted to current stall holders in Luna
   
3. Ministry of Truth (minitruth) - granted to the founding members of the Metaverse Justice Watch
   
4. Ministry of Love (miniluv) - mine, mine, all mine!
   

All opposed say nay.

.... waits ....

Motion passed.

You must be much relieved.

LOL - about time you used one of my notions I'm sick of you turning out to be right all the damn time....

Although in this case I think his other book may be a appropriate too:

All animals are equal, only some are more equal than others