Brenda Connolly

Ok, but he says this to start off:
He seems to be intimating that he prercieves this "Government" will have jusrisdiction over all.....or am i just reading too much into it?

__________________
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com

CaleVinson

I think you're reading it correctly Brenda, and I if I recall correctly the "applies to all" was a central plank of the system as discussed in an epic SC thread.

Many people recoil against this aspect (I do too), but at the end of the day, anyone is entitled to ban anyone from their land for whatever reason they see fit.

Brenda Connolly

Of course they are. But they always were, before this clown showed up. I don't need any "Court" to tell me who to allow on my land. *If I owned any, that is* But he seems to think that he will be able to foist this upon EVERYONE, whether they "subscribe" to his service or not. How does he propose to do that?

Hypatia Callisto

IT WONT APPLY IN CALEDON.

or Winterfell or Skybeam either.

FLEE TO US!

__________________
"To begin with," said the Cat, "a dog's not mad. You grant that?"

"I suppose so," said Alice.

"Well, then," the Cat went on, "you see, a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tail when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad."

"I call it purring, not growling," said Alice.

"Call it what you like," said the Cat.

Vengence Opus

can i be Judge Judy?

pm me if you need an SL judge. seriously.

possible sentences:

- pummeling by watermelon gun.
- forced to wear nooby clothing for one week.
- box on the head, sent to welcome area with a "mentor" tag.
- revocation of "HOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" privileges.


i really could go on, but please.

pm.

Judge Judy.

thinks about it.

__________________


“If you're losing your soul and you know it, then you've still got a soul left to lose.” ~ Charles Bukowski

Hypatia Callisto

I think the general understanding of "free market" as preserving the actions of individuals stands. It was free market reforms that brought Pinochet to democratise Chile, and eventually stand trial for his crimes.

People keep saying that about free market leads to monopoly, but in fact I've always seen it quite different in practice. It is the interference of government, especially courts and "parliaments" like Ashcroft's, that supports and nourishes monopolies and nationalises industries.

And that's easily proven, court case after court case defending the rights of big biz in America.

Corporations are a legal animal that wouldn't exist too well if they didn't have such a body of law to support their legal existence.

CaleVinson

Well, at the mechanical level, we know it can be done - you don't get to chose to be subject to BanLink either.

Whether anyone will care about being banned from the Republic will depend on its size, and I doubt many here believe that it will amount to much.

That said, you have only to read the official forums or the blog to see quite a number of people crying out for some sort of justice system to protect themselves against SL's numerous scammers. LL won't/can't do anything, so I'm not surprised that a resident is having a go.

CaleVinson

Indeed Hypatia.

Perhaps we should progress this a step further .....

Years of prosperity under the Golden Rule of our guvner, Desmond Shang, have convinced me that democracies such as this Metaverse Republic are clearly dangerous, and a threat to our tea and scones ways.

It may come to pass that Caledon will be forced to take military action against this upstart, purely in self-defense. What fellow despotic regimes will stand with us? Duchy of Darkmere, will you answer the call!?

Hypatia Callisto

We shall maintain our neutrality, and continue our shipments of clotted cream and scones to whomever wishes to buy them.

Our Guvnah will ignore completely the siren calls of Ashcroft Burnham, as the people stand united in their free market capitalistic ways to sell our goods to whomever wishes to enter our lands to buy them.

Hypatia Callisto

PIRATE ROGUE TRADERS OF CALEDON UNTIED.

*g*

Isablan Neva

The thing is, though, that government intervention in the free market is almost always exclusively at the behest of market titans with great wealth that they would rather increase and protect. Leaving wealth at the hands of a free market would expose them to the results of bad decisions/corruption/shit happening that everyone else has to deal with. We can't be having any of that. So, the market makers curry friends and make contributions in the right places to ensure that "regulations" and "rules" are to their benefit.

Just look at what is going on right now with the protections the SEC is offering to 19 "market makers" with friends in high places and half of our elected representatives owing them favors.

Dancien Graves

Seriously? Most of the knuckle draggers in SL can't even figure out that stealing from content creators is wrong. And they want to form some type of government?

__________________

Hypatia Callisto

You're confusing "free market" with "government interference" and my point still stands.

Government should be restrained from this kind of interference in a free market. I don't think any free marketeer would disagree. And we wouldn't even HAVE much of this problem if we didn't gut the 14th amendment with decisions such as the Slaughterhouse cases, which replaced the free market of butchers in Louisiana with a state owned racket. This was the decision that sent the South on its way to legal sanction of Jim Crow *and* set in motion the process that affirm corporate personhood through *federal law* today.

Slaughter-House Cases, 1873

Well... that's not a free market, is it? *Individuals* were being forced *by government* to no longer practice their business.

Corporate personhood debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jefferson wanted an amendment in the Constitution to restrain monopolies, but didn't get his way. We're supporting corporate monopolies with our laws, and have been in a big way since the Civil War.

Isablan Neva

We are actually in complete agreement

My point is that if you follow the money, there was somebody, somewhere who instigated the government interference. The government does stupid things on a regular basis, but anytime they are interfering in business it is because somebody with a very large wallet wants business interfered with for their own gain. Government is full of whores will do anything for a buck and they dance to the tune of those who have the most bucks.

Hypatia Callisto

Protectionism isn't consistent with a free market, and it's much to blame for why we have powerful corporations.

If corporations were restrained more from interfering with individuals such as what happened with Slaughterhouse, we'd have a far more diverse economy I believe. Maybe we wouldn't be as "powerful", because a free market that restrains monopolies has a way of dispersing wealth more evenly, but we'd still be just as free as Switzerland, I'd reckon.

(I blame the guns lol)

Kendra Bancroft

Geeeez

Even Neualtenburg quit with that shit and set up an artist's collective two years ago.

And as soon as I have a working computer --it's comin' back baby!

__________________

Isablan Neva

I blame the greed. Hard to get rid of though, being as we're human and all that.

Hypatia Callisto

oh, was a joke about the guns keeping us free so far

Yeah... human greed is a big problem

Lucifer Baphomet

Ambassador Vinson.. if this is an official request, you know we shall of course stand shoulder to shoulder with our Caledonian Allies.

__________________

Khamon

It's as interesting as the official forum realignment oh and hair and stuff or something.

__________________
But of bliss and glad life there is little to be said, before it ends; as works fair and wonderful, while still they endure for eyes to see, are their own record, and only when they are in peril or broken for ever do they pass into song. - Quenta Silmarillion

Please Visit Our Gardens and Our Website

Joannah Cramer

And yet it's the free market that led to domination of practically one company on market of operating systems and business software for personal computers. And it's the same free market in the game industry not the government support or regulations, that eventually resulted into gathering the bought-out remaints of large number of small developers in the giants like EA.

And yet it's that meddling government and courts that every now and then utilize the antitrust laws to break such monopolies or prevent them from forming. Shouldn't these cases be counted against this theory? And if it wasn't for them who exactly would break these monopolies... the budding competition which simply gets bought up at first sign of success an merged into existing market leaders, because that's the simplest way to deal with them and is perfectly within limits of free market?

I don't understand this point, considering a corporation is to business/market much like what a party is to political system -- a basic unit of organization. If they didn't exist who do you imagine would form the market, individual manufacturers?

Hypatia Callisto

No, it's not. There is no really free market that favours individuals. The laws are set up to favour the corporations.

Collectivism by any other name, is not a free market.


We should have had a constitutional amendment from the start limiting corporations (monopolies). Mercantilism is what classical economics was a response to, not a result. So we're back to another sort of mercantilism again...

We had government subsidization of corporations in the 19th century, which inhibited the flow of goods from England and other countries. There was no free market, no free competition. American manufacturers had the American market pretty much all to themselves, wth laws that favored them to the wealth of American natural resources.

Sort of like how China does it now, in fact.

Can you in fact, say with a straight face that China is less free now with market reforms (even though they are far less than perfect) than it was under the Cultural Revolution, though?

I can't.

Hypatia Callisto

This is the spirit of what armozel meant, I'm quite sure. Now, armozel is far more of an anarchist than I am, but at least argue on the tenets of what someone actually professes to believe, rather than strawmen about the current system, which has really nothing to do with the body of thought that comprises more radical forms of anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalists don't believe in any government interference at all. Sure. But that's the most *extreme* form of neoliberal thought. Most neoliberals are not so extreme.

I believe in limited government. I do believe there is a role for government to protect people, so you're right in noticing that I actually do support it.

I am a market liberal, not a "capitalist" (which is a word from Marxism anyway, and I am quite opposed to Marxism, so it just doesn't apply to me) We have a government already in real life, so those laws trump. Second Life is owned by Linden Lab, it's their *private* property. I pay them for a service, and if someone like Ashcroft wants to set up a government, they are welcome to go make their own service. I'll be amused to see how long it lasts.

I see what Ashcroft doing, is trying to appropriate the property of Linden Lab and the rights of those of us who use the service. That's nothing short of nationalisation, and that's generally regarded as socialist.

Caliandris

In the interests of providing good information to dissect I am providing this chat log from today, reproduced with permission, and as agreed, I will follow this post with the complete FAQ and the complete outline note card. Sorry for the quantity of material, but I wonder if maybe it does deserve looking at, forewarned being forearmed etc. I don't think I came off particularly well in any aspect of the discussion, frankly, but I am willing to look stupid for the good of all... I can offer Numbakulla as refuge too!
bws Cali

The following is the complete and unedited chat in five sections... I'm sorry!






[3:16] Ashcroft Burnham: Hello :-)
[3:16] Caliandris Pendragon: hi there
[3:17] Caliandris Pendragon: I have read all the information you sent to me
[3:17] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, excellent :-)
[3:17] Caliandris Pendragon: I can't say that I like it
[3:18] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh - may I ask why? :-)
[3:18] Caliandris Pendragon: There are all sorts of levels on which I dislike it intensely
[3:18] Caliandris Pendragon: well... people pay to be here
[3:18] Caliandris Pendragon: and you aren't in charge of the platform
[3:18] Ashcroft Burnham: Well, no - the people who pay, the landowners, are the people who choose whether to subscribe :-)
[3:19] Caliandris Pendragon: you can talk about democracy as much as you like, but if half the people on the platform reject the idea that a government is needed or wanted then you don't have a mandate to provide one by recruiting the other half
[3:19] Ashcroft Burnham: And choose whether to empower teh system.
[3:19] Ashcroft Burnham: Well, you're assuming numbers for which there isn't evidence - where do you get the figure half?
[3:19] Caliandris Pendragon: I think I was being generous
[3:19] Ashcroft Burnham: And, even if that were true, doesn't the same point apply equally in reverse - why should one half impose anarchy on the other?
[3:20] Caliandris Pendragon: I'd say more than half would reject the whole idea as unnecessary and unworkable
[3:20] Ashcroft Burnham: That's still a guess :-)
[3:20] Caliandris Pendragon: or... they'd move to Opensim where that's the situation
[3:20] Caliandris Pendragon: no... talking to people I haven't found one yet who thinks it is a good idea
[3:20] Ashcroft Burnham: Opensim - we are planning to expand to Opensim worlds, too :-)
[3:20] Ashcroft Burnham: What's your sample size; and what were your questions? :-)
[3:21] Caliandris Pendragon: Sample size is small and self-selecting as my friends and acquaintances
[3:21] Caliandris Pendragon: who of course are more likely to have views and opinions which match mine, I accept that
[3:21] Ashcroft Burnham: Not statistically valid, really :-) And the tone of the questions is vital.
[3:21] Ashcroft Burnham: If you don't like the idea yourself, you are more likely to ask a question in a way which prompts a negative answer.
[3:21] Caliandris Pendragon: the answer I got to what do you think about this? were... why?
[3:21] Ashcroft Burnham: But how did you describe the "this".
[3:21] Ashcroft Burnham: ?
[3:22] Caliandris Pendragon: your notecards
[3:22] Ashcroft Burnham: You sent the notecards?
[3:22] Caliandris Pendragon: I took the describing paragraph
[3:22] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, you didn't send everything, then?
[3:22] Caliandris Pendragon: not the whole thing... people don't read whole notecards
[3:22] Caliandris Pendragon: no
[3:22] Ashcroft Burnham: There are a number of points on the FAQ that importantly explain the reasoning.
[3:22] Caliandris Pendragon: they barely read excerpts usually
[3:23] Ashcroft Burnham: Can I be clear - is your problem that you think that other people will find it "unworkable or unnecessary", or that *you* personally find it unworkable and unnecessary, and feel fortified in that view because your friends agree with you?
[3:23] Ashcroft Burnham: We'll have to get our publicity team to explain the benefits in a shorter form, I think :-)
[3:23] Caliandris Pendragon: I would go much further... I think it is potentially destructive of what people visit virtual worlds to find
[3:24] Ashcroft Burnham: Can you explain why?
[3:24] Caliandris Pendragon: I think that having a mock courts sytem somewhere in the virtual world is one thing
[3:24] Ashcroft Burnham: People visit virtual worlds to find, amongst other things, an independent normative system.
[3:24] Ashcroft Burnham: That is part of what we seek to provide.
[3:24] Caliandris Pendragon: People don't know generally what they will ind OR what they are looking for
[3:24] Ashcroft Burnham: Or rather, seek to uphold; the substantive laws themselves are made by the operation of the system, not its design.
[3:25] Caliandris Pendragon: I spent four years as a mentor for Linden Lab....
[3:25] Ashcroft Burnham: If people in virtual worlds don't know what they're going to find, how can anything be destructive of what people visit virtual worlds to find?
[3:25] Caliandris Pendragon: They look for a freedom they don't have in real life
[3:26] Caliandris Pendragon: and it seems to me that can be undirected
[3:26] Ashcroft Burnham: All of them?
[3:26] Caliandris Pendragon: but stil afected by what you seek to set up
[3:26] Ashcroft Burnham: You think that that's the motivation for the majority of users of any virtual world?
[3:26] Caliandris Pendragon: no... corporate people want all sorts of things which are contrary to what the ordinary people want
[3:26] Ashcroft Burnham: The reality is that people's freedoms are affected more by lawlesness than by law.
[3:26] Caliandris Pendragon: and so do academics
[3:26] Caliandris Pendragon: not in a virtual world they aren't
[3:27] Ashcroft Burnham: Why do you think that people other than corporate people and academics deserve the special category of "ordinary"?
[3:27] Caliandris Pendragon: because you can do all sorts of things that you cannot do in RL, surely
[3:27] Ashcroft Burnham: Are coroprate people and academics not "ordinary", too? Indeed, is anyone truly "ordinary"?
[3:27] Ashcroft Burnham: By "ordinary", do you mean anything more than like you?
[3:27] Caliandris Pendragon: Corporate people and academics are not ordinary
[3:27] Caliandris Pendragon: by virtue of the hats thy wear when they enter SL they change the experience for themselves
[3:28] Ashcroft Burnham: The fact that people use virtual worlds to do things that are not possible in physical space does not by itself entail that a virtual world should be perpetually chained to anarchy.
[3:28] Caliandris Pendragon: I have dealt with hundreds of people in their first ew daysof SL and I have found that people who come in as themselves... will very often reveal information hey ought not - they are undefended psychologically
[3:28] Ashcroft Burnham: What exactly is your definition of "ordinary" here?
[3:28] Caliandris Pendragon: I have never found that - not ONCE - with a corporate or academic entrant... they have an entire different viewpoint
[3:28] Ashcroft Burnham: Different to what?
[3:29] Caliandris Pendragon: Ordinary in this context = anyone NOT an academic or corporate
[3:29] Caliandris Pendragon: different from the people who aren't corporate or academic
[3:29] Ashcroft Burnham: That's a circular definition.
[3:29] Caliandris Pendragon: it affects their whole attitude
[3:29] Ashcroft Burnham: Why should non-corporate and non-academic be "ordinary", and corporate and academic, by extrapolation, be extraordinary?
[3:29] Caliandris Pendragon: hmmm I think that I begin to see why you are in favour of a parliament
[3:29] Ashcroft Burnham: Why do you seek to privilege the first class?

Caliandris

[3:30] Ashcroft Burnham: What do you mean?
[3:30] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't
[3:30] Caliandris Pendragon: I have to use a word to distinguish the people who aren academics and corporates, that is shorter than that
[3:30] Caliandris Pendragon: that'sall I did
[3:30] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, but there's a very particular effect of calling people "ordinary" people, isn't there?
[3:31] Caliandris Pendragon: not if I include myself in that definition... I see no harm or insult in distinguishing those who are not academics and corporates as ordinary residents
[3:31] Caliandris Pendragon: plain, not here to represen an institution or a company
[3:32] Ashcroft Burnham: You mean non-institutional?
[3:32] Caliandris Pendragon: I mean ordinary and don't see that as a pejorative distinction
[3:33] Ashcroft Burnham: No, I meant quite the converse: in discourse such as this, "ordinary" is usually the category that is sought to be especially privileged.
[3:33] Caliandris Pendragon: Maybe it means a different thing in non UK English?
[3:33] Ashcroft Burnham: (Implying that those who are not "ordinary" have special interests that ought be discounted).
[3:33] Ashcroft Burnham: It comes from left-wing political thought.
[3:33] Caliandris Pendragon: oh not at all
[3:33] Ashcroft Burnham: Hmm, perhaps it does.
[3:33] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't see it that way at all
[3:33] Ashcroft Burnham: That's how I understood the term.
[3:34] Ashcroft Burnham: So, in this context, you just meant "non-institutional"?
[3:35] Caliandris Pendragon: well I don't think someone who comes in to represent atwo man grocery shop would be considered institutional, so I don't think that's a good distinction, no
[3:35] Ashcroft Burnham: What about a small local chain of grocery shops?
[3:35] Caliandris Pendragon: you just like arguing, I think
[3:36] Ashcroft Burnham: Well, no - I'm trying to find the boundary.
[3:36] Ashcroft Burnham: But perhaps we're straying a little.
[3:36] Caliandris Pendragon: because there seems little point in continuing to disagree when I have been quite clear about my distinction betwee people who represent their college or university or company and those who come in a "ordinary" residents just there for themselves
[3:36] Ashcroft Burnham: It might be better if we returned to the main point, which is this: is your concern that it will make other people's experiences worse, or that it'll make your experience worse?
[3:37] Caliandris Pendragon: I disagree with imposing quasi judicial system on the virtual world
[3:37] Ashcroft Burnham: I'm trying to get at the reasons.
[3:37] Caliandris Pendragon: I disagree tat parliament or democracy are needed
[3:37] Ashcroft Burnham: And why do you say quasi-judicial.
[3:38] Ashcroft Burnham: ?
[3:38] Caliandris Pendragon: loss of freedom when my freedoms currently do not impinge on any other residents own freedom
[3:38] Ashcroft Burnham: What sort of loss of freedoms do you envisage?
[3:39] Ashcroft Burnham: And do you think that it's true of *everyone* that no resident's freedom ever impinges on another's interests?
[3:39] Caliandris Pendragon: the freedom not to have to engage in political debate, not to have to defend my actions to some self-appointed judge or jury
[3:39] Ashcroft Burnham: No, I mean, specifically - that's a second-order freedom.
[3:40] Caliandris Pendragon: the imposition of a parliament and a court system in world or in the metavers which I do not want, is a loss of freedom in itself
[3:40] Caliandris Pendragon: because I want to be free NOT to have those things
[3:40] Caliandris Pendragon: and currently, I have THAT freedom
[3:41] Ashcroft Burnham: I think that you've just demonstrated the contradiction in your own argument - you want to be "free" that *other people* do not do certain things. That is itself an imposition on other's freedoms to do those things, is it not? Which demonstrates that the exercise of the freedoms of some always has the potential to impact on the freedom of others.
[3:41] Caliandris Pendragon: no
[3:41] Caliandris Pendragon: because I am not imposing that on you
[3:41] Ashcroft Burnham: If you want to be free that not X (not truly a freedom, more a desire), and others wish to be free to do X, there's a conflict.
[3:41] Caliandris Pendragon: you are free to buy your own sim and set up your own court
[3:42] Caliandris Pendragon: but you want to impose that on me
[3:42] Ashcroft Burnham: And that's true for any X.
[3:42] Caliandris Pendragon: you don't want to limit it to your own area
[3:42] Caliandris Pendragon: no conflict
[3:42] Caliandris Pendragon: I have no problem with you doing it on your own land in your own sphere of influence
[3:42] Caliandris Pendragon: none at all
[3:42] Caliandris Pendragon: just don't start extending it to the rest of SL and the metaverse
[3:42] Ashcroft Burnham: There is conflict, since you suggest that our freedom should be only "to limit it to our own area" whatever that is, whereas we don't beleive that it should be limited.
[3:42] Caliandris Pendragon: well then you wish to impose your views on me
[3:43] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't wish to impose mine on you
[3:43] Caliandris Pendragon: that's what I object to
[3:43] Ashcroft Burnham: You do, don't you? You want to impose the view that we shouldn't extend the system.
[3:43] Caliandris Pendragon: no
[3:43] Ashcroft Burnham: That's imposition as much as any.
[3:43] Caliandris Pendragon: ribbish
[3:43] Caliandris Pendragon: rubish... if you set up a quasi military outfit down the road from me, I woul have no problem with that
[3:44] Caliandris Pendragon: until the moment you tried to extend it to my neighbourhood and appoitn yourself the army
[3:44] Caliandris Pendragon: and then I woul have a problem with that - but it woudln't be that I wished to curtail your freedom to play soldiers if you wanted to, on you land
[3:44] Ashcroft Burnham: "Rubbish" is not a reasoned response. You don't seem to be addressing the issue itself - your argument seems to come down to simply asserting that you don't want the thing that is being proposed, rather than stating in terms why what we propose (the rule of law) is worse than the existing position (quasi-anarchy).
[3:44] Caliandris Pendragon: it isn't quasi anarchy
[3:44] Ashcroft Burnham: Remember, it'll be the subscribers who are extending it by subscribing.