Howard Fineman's book "The Thirteen American Arguments" puts forward the view that the United States of America is 'The Arguing Country' - born in, and born to, debate. How much truer is this of the CDS - Second Life's oldest democracy born in, and born to, endless argument! Fineman considers this to be America's greatest strength. I agree, and I think our tendency to argue is one of the CDS's greatest strengths too. I have identified "Six CDS Arguments" which I have seen in my years in this community.
Fineman identifies thirteen core arguments which have been raging in the US since the Declaration of Independence (and sometimes from even earlier). "Who is a person?", "Who is an American?", "What is the role of faith?" - these are all arguments that can never be said to be completely settled. Each generation needs to retread old ground and take into account new information and new attitudes as it considers these fundamental questions for itself. It seems obvious to us now in the twenty-first century that women and men deserve equal rights, that slavery is abhorrent and that race is a social, not a biological construct which does not justify unequal treatment. But, as history shows, these debates had to be had in order to take American society from a place in which African Americans were treated as property and women denied the vote to one in which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could compete for the Presidency. Fineman goes on to question whether our understanding of personhood might be extended to include the unborn or enemy combatants held in Guantanamo. We might also consider whether artificial life-forms might one day be considered to be persons too. (This is a rich theme in science fiction from the recent 'Battlestar Galactica' remake to 'I, Robot' and beyond).
The equivalent CDS arguments are a little different - we have not spent a great deal of time discussing the role of faith in our virtual lives for example (though perhaps Al Andalus residents have?) But there are a set of core CDS arguments which we return to from time to time. Here are some I have identified from the past four years living in the CDS sims.
1. Who is a citizen?
We generally agree that one citizen = one avatar = one RL human being but the CDS is pretty open to abuse of alts. Anyone could, in theory, hold two or more avatars and have two or more votes in the CDS. We have often debated how we might fix this problem and reduce the potential for abuse but, so far, have not been able to come up with any solutions which do not have significant drawbacks in terms of privacy. We operate on the 'honour system'. To further complicate matters, some have argued that alts should each get a vote!
We are a property-owning democracy - the general rule is that you need to own land in the CDS sims to be a citizen. Again, this has been challenged previously and some have suggested cutting that connection between land ownership and citizenship.
The waters were muddied by the Group Land Ownership Act which allowed people who had owned land individually in the CDS to own land in common and derive citizenship through paying a portion of the monthly tier. This was so that people in relationships could own one plot in common (rather than having to each have separate homes in the CDS). It was also intended to cater for larger group projects, e.g. religious groups or language communities like the Esperantists, who could own a plot in common and each derive their citizenship through contributing to the tier on the land. This was passed with the best of intentions but it has certainly made the census much more difficult to implement.
2. What are the limits to free speech?
The CDS has a pretty strong tradition of free speech but this has taken a beating in recent years. Free speech is guaranteed by the CDS Constitution and its incorporation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but free speech is muted by social pressure. For example, during the debate over merger with Al Andalus anyone who raised a question about the merger in the CDS was shouted down and told they were being 'offensive'. People were told to shut up or risk nixing the merger. There has also been a muting of free speech in the interests of 'civility' and to avoid putting off new citizens with open expressions of passionate disagreement. This was used for a time by those in power previously to inhibit criticism and avoid being held accountable.
The move towards greater civility has had its positive side though. We rarely take quite the same kind of chunks out of each other in RA meetings as we used to during the CARE/NuCARE years. This is a perennial debate and an inevitable one given the disparate political cultures we come from in RL.
3. Local v. national authority
Considering how small the CDS is in terms of population (currently about 120 citizens and double what it was before last year's merger with Al Andalus) we have had discussions about more local government since the time when we only had one sim! There have been several complicated proposals for turning the CDS into a federal state. (By the way, the 'Confederation' in the title has no real meaning; it was the least worst of the several awful names we considered when some of the founders left 'Neulatenburg', as it then was, and wanted to take the name with them). At one point we even considered a 'virtual United Nations' which other micronations such as Caledon could be invited to join.
I think this has the potential to be a more interesting discussion now we have almost reached Dunbar's number for the total population of the CDS. It is becoming more difficult to say you really know everyone in the CDS and there is a definite AA/former CDS split. It may be time to consider how we build on the recent local government initiatives in terms of event scheduling so that different CDS communities can run more of their own affairs.
4. Role of the Executive
The original founders were very worried about executive powers, in fact there was no true executive in the early years at all. I think there was a worry that if an individual was given executive powers it would be very likely they would be abused and that the monarchical dictatorship model so common in the rest of the grid would be the outcome. Executive powers were spread out between the Representative Assembly (legislature), the Scientific Council (quasi-judiciary) and the Guild (artisanal collective). It took a number of years to develop proposals for the Chancellorship and for a long time 'getting things done' meant putting ideas forward at an RA meeting. The wheels sure ground slowly in those years.
The Chancelry has changed a lot over the intervening years largely in keeping with the personality of whoever holds the position. We have had fairly inactive Chancellors who have kept a low profile; we have had ones who were more active in some areas than others. The person who has set his stamp on it more than anyone else though is the recent three-time incumbent Jamie Palisades. During Jamie's time in office the Executive was very active, dominating RA meetings and driving forward the Al Andalus merger. It will be interesting to see what direction this goes in with a new Chancellor, Sonja Strom, having recently taken office.
5. What is the CDS for?
We have never been able to agree on this one! We have never even been able to agree whether we should decide what the CDS is for in the first place! There have been attempts over the years to craft a 'mission statement', something equivalent to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' that would cover what the CDS is here for. But we have never been able to agree. Some think that such attempts are counterproductive in any case because, by selecting one set of options, we automatically close of others. In practice, the CDS appears to be here for as long as a group of people want it to be and to be for whatever the current group of citizens want it to be for. Long may that continue! With or without a mission statement.
6. What are the limits to individual freedom?
We had an interesting debate when someone put up red 'ban lines' around their property in Neufreistadt. There is no rule against it in our (lengthy, detailed, largely unenforced) covenants but it is kind of a social rule, a shared understanding, that we do not put up ban lines around our property in the CDS. It is not like the mainland and people do so usually without any strong intention to. Well, some people were outraged! They wanted to force people to take down ban lines, amend the covenants retrospectively and so on. (The sensible thing to do in these situations, as always, is to talk to your neighbours and ask them politely to take them down explaining why they are not needed. People are sensible for the most part and respond well to being treated like adults). We had a great discussion about it and were reminded that, within the limits of the ridiculous, arbitrary, nonsensical and unenforced covenants we have all signed up to, we do what the hell we want with our property and the government has no right to start making up new rules to limit our freedom.
Now, I am being cruel about our covenants. They could be improved to fit in with the wishes of current citizens and current practice but they do serve a useful purpose - they keep the sims largely pretty and largely within them. We are not blighted by the 'fuck you' hedonism of the mainland with spinning, flashing signs, monstrously ugly builds and Mr Lee's Greater Hong Kong. Neither are we limited to what is provided on an overly themed private estate or a Linden 'burb. The great thing about democracy is that we get to decide just how pernickety we want to be about these things.
We generally agree that one citizen = one avatar = one RL human being but the CDS is pretty open to abuse of alts. Anyone could, in theory, hold two or more avatars and have two or more votes in the CDS. We have often debated how we might fix this problem and reduce the potential for abuse but, so far, have not been able to come up with any solutions which do not have significant drawbacks in terms of privacy. We operate on the 'honour system'. To further complicate matters, some have argued that alts should each get a vote!
We are a property-owning democracy - the general rule is that you need to own land in the CDS sims to be a citizen. Again, this has been challenged previously and some have suggested cutting that connection between land ownership and citizenship.
The waters were muddied by the Group Land Ownership Act which allowed people who had owned land individually in the CDS to own land in common and derive citizenship through paying a portion of the monthly tier. This was so that people in relationships could own one plot in common (rather than having to each have separate homes in the CDS). It was also intended to cater for larger group projects, e.g. religious groups or language communities like the Esperantists, who could own a plot in common and each derive their citizenship through contributing to the tier on the land. This was passed with the best of intentions but it has certainly made the census much more difficult to implement.
2. What are the limits to free speech?
The CDS has a pretty strong tradition of free speech but this has taken a beating in recent years. Free speech is guaranteed by the CDS Constitution and its incorporation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but free speech is muted by social pressure. For example, during the debate over merger with Al Andalus anyone who raised a question about the merger in the CDS was shouted down and told they were being 'offensive'. People were told to shut up or risk nixing the merger. There has also been a muting of free speech in the interests of 'civility' and to avoid putting off new citizens with open expressions of passionate disagreement. This was used for a time by those in power previously to inhibit criticism and avoid being held accountable.
The move towards greater civility has had its positive side though. We rarely take quite the same kind of chunks out of each other in RA meetings as we used to during the CARE/NuCARE years. This is a perennial debate and an inevitable one given the disparate political cultures we come from in RL.
3. Local v. national authority
Considering how small the CDS is in terms of population (currently about 120 citizens and double what it was before last year's merger with Al Andalus) we have had discussions about more local government since the time when we only had one sim! There have been several complicated proposals for turning the CDS into a federal state. (By the way, the 'Confederation' in the title has no real meaning; it was the least worst of the several awful names we considered when some of the founders left 'Neulatenburg', as it then was, and wanted to take the name with them). At one point we even considered a 'virtual United Nations' which other micronations such as Caledon could be invited to join.
I think this has the potential to be a more interesting discussion now we have almost reached Dunbar's number for the total population of the CDS. It is becoming more difficult to say you really know everyone in the CDS and there is a definite AA/former CDS split. It may be time to consider how we build on the recent local government initiatives in terms of event scheduling so that different CDS communities can run more of their own affairs.
4. Role of the Executive
The original founders were very worried about executive powers, in fact there was no true executive in the early years at all. I think there was a worry that if an individual was given executive powers it would be very likely they would be abused and that the monarchical dictatorship model so common in the rest of the grid would be the outcome. Executive powers were spread out between the Representative Assembly (legislature), the Scientific Council (quasi-judiciary) and the Guild (artisanal collective). It took a number of years to develop proposals for the Chancellorship and for a long time 'getting things done' meant putting ideas forward at an RA meeting. The wheels sure ground slowly in those years.
The Chancelry has changed a lot over the intervening years largely in keeping with the personality of whoever holds the position. We have had fairly inactive Chancellors who have kept a low profile; we have had ones who were more active in some areas than others. The person who has set his stamp on it more than anyone else though is the recent three-time incumbent Jamie Palisades. During Jamie's time in office the Executive was very active, dominating RA meetings and driving forward the Al Andalus merger. It will be interesting to see what direction this goes in with a new Chancellor, Sonja Strom, having recently taken office.
5. What is the CDS for?
We have never been able to agree on this one! We have never even been able to agree whether we should decide what the CDS is for in the first place! There have been attempts over the years to craft a 'mission statement', something equivalent to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' that would cover what the CDS is here for. But we have never been able to agree. Some think that such attempts are counterproductive in any case because, by selecting one set of options, we automatically close of others. In practice, the CDS appears to be here for as long as a group of people want it to be and to be for whatever the current group of citizens want it to be for. Long may that continue! With or without a mission statement.
6. What are the limits to individual freedom?
We had an interesting debate when someone put up red 'ban lines' around their property in Neufreistadt. There is no rule against it in our (lengthy, detailed, largely unenforced) covenants but it is kind of a social rule, a shared understanding, that we do not put up ban lines around our property in the CDS. It is not like the mainland and people do so usually without any strong intention to. Well, some people were outraged! They wanted to force people to take down ban lines, amend the covenants retrospectively and so on. (The sensible thing to do in these situations, as always, is to talk to your neighbours and ask them politely to take them down explaining why they are not needed. People are sensible for the most part and respond well to being treated like adults). We had a great discussion about it and were reminded that, within the limits of the ridiculous, arbitrary, nonsensical and unenforced covenants we have all signed up to, we do what the hell we want with our property and the government has no right to start making up new rules to limit our freedom.
Now, I am being cruel about our covenants. They could be improved to fit in with the wishes of current citizens and current practice but they do serve a useful purpose - they keep the sims largely pretty and largely within them. We are not blighted by the 'fuck you' hedonism of the mainland with spinning, flashing signs, monstrously ugly builds and Mr Lee's Greater Hong Kong. Neither are we limited to what is provided on an overly themed private estate or a Linden 'burb. The great thing about democracy is that we get to decide just how pernickety we want to be about these things.
---------------
Some will say that my list of six is somewhat arbitrary and be able to identify a number of others that repeat pretty regularly. Please feel free to add to and criticise my list in the comments!
