Creation of Liberty-City State - Governor & Mayoral Discussion

[Brett]

Hello, I'm going to try and keep this short by dividing this into quick sections with the ideas being proposed, and the reasons for the proposal for you to give your own opinions. Thus this shouldn't be a long topic, but the effects of this discussion will be far-reaching so please take this rather short topic into deep consideration when giving opinions. 

 

Core Government Problem

 

In order for a City Government to appropriately function with it's appropriate law-making authority and enforcement bodies, it must have a basis in State Law to some extent for it to carry out such duties. However in LCRP, you can't interact with other areas of the State of Liberty outside of the City of Liberty and all laws and proclamations from a state level would only be applicable to the city to add or remove authority from the City Government where a majority of government action would come from. The current structure set up to handle this issue is that there is an OOC appointed Governor who is an admin who is meant to moderate legislative initiatives that need to be state affairs such as legislation which for the sake of being brief I won't go over all this could cover, but just know if you are unaware of the difference between State and Local government in the US the State holds a ton of power on a lot more issues traditionally then a city to make more significant changes. Under the OOC appointed governor you have the Elected Mayor of Liberty City and City Council who operate within the framework established by this OOC governor figure who cannot be touched from an IC standpoint. The problem here is very obvious. If you have to go through an OOC entity you can't hold accountable to pass important pieces of legislation or efforts, it makes being a City Legislator or elected official a bit powerless in comparison to the role of the State Governor and thus could lower interest in these roles due to their limited authority. Where in the eyes of the State Governor, they are merely just a figure to provide appropriate stability and this is where the conflict comes. 

 

Proposal One

 

This proposal recommends that the system be kept in place, with one minor change. In that the Mayor of Liberty City who is elected by the people, are with the Chief Justice of the Judiciary playing the role of a single state governor. The idea is that it allows for an individual who is elected by the people to also be directly counter-balanced by someone who is appointed to look at matters relating to server stability in order to determine if legislation proposed and enacted will not be detrimental to server stability as a whole in the eyes of the holders of these positions. The biggest pro in this system is stability. A mock process of how this would work is as follows;

 

1. City Councilor submits legislation they want the State to implement such as increase in firearm sentencing with additional gun control laws.
2. City Council votes on said legislation, to which the mayor can either sign or veto from an IC point of view.
3. After being signed by the Mayor, or if a veto was overruled by the City Council it now goes to the OOC governor (Chief Justice and Mayor on an OOC basis) who will ultimately decide the fate of legislation needing to be done on a state level.

 

This system is meant to keep a traditional US government structure intact as best as able, and as I mentioned before is argued in the name of stability more then anything.

 

 

Proposal Two

 

This proposal recommend a rather radical shift in how government is done in regards to traditional US Governance. In this proposal, in the lore it will be stated that the State of Liberty at a certain point created legislation authorizing the State Government to designate certain regions as "Special Administrative Districts," voted on by the State Legislature (NPC) and signed by the State Governor (Server Management), authorizing Liberty City to adapt it's own Constitution separate from the State of Liberty, with it's own Judicial System overseen by the State Supreme Court of Liberty, that still must of course follow the US Federal Constitution, but is basically delegated powers of being a city-state on it's own that only pays taxes to the State of Liberty, but otherwise is under the full control of itself. In this structure the courts would be municipal (excluding the State Supreme Court), with all layers of government just being operated on that level. This would mean that all types of laws would be allowed to be done by elected players, with the full impact and enforcement of law without an outside body not within the factions themselves. A mock process of how this would work is as follows;

 

1. City Councilor submits legislation they want such as an increase in firearm sentencing with additional gun control laws.
2. City Council votes on said legislation, to which the mayor can either sign or veto from an IC point of view.
3. After being signed by the Mayor, or if a veto was overruled by the City Council, it is signed into law. Only able to be judged on it's constitutionality in court or overturned by a different city legislature.

 

This system although different from how a traditional US government structure would operate, is not necessarily unrealistic as it is indeed something that is 100% possible for a State Government in real life to implement if they really wanted it. It is meant to serve as closely as possible the needs of just the roleplay community within the City, without involving too much OOC authorities, but in doing so can sacrifice some stability outside of Server Management who could at any time decide to dissolve the City Government and temporarily revoke the Special Administrative status if things just get too wacky. 

 

Conclusion

 

This is truly a question of what you value more here. Government is going to be a much more vital element in this community then others, and what they do is going to matter more. If you value stability above else, you may be inclined to go with proposal one despite it's cons in reducing representation of players. Same as if you value player representation above else, you may be inclined to go with proposal two despite it's cons in reducing stability. But LCRP is pushing boundaries in a lot of it's operations, and it would be against the community values not to put ideas like this forward for debate. If there are any questions on the proposals that I could clarify further go ahead and ask, but I will not try to sway your opinions one way or the other on this as I truly just need them gathered. Thank you for reading and I look forward to hearing your thoughts for the benefit of the entire community. 

 

 

 

 

[Ascendency]

Each borough should have 2 representatives, so the city council will have 10 representatives. That's enough for LCRP, at least for now. Without the presence of the governor, all citywide legislation should work with the functionality of the city council. If there is something that requires state legislature, then it may be NPC'd by city council members and voted OOCly but considered as city council representative's political party.

 

So basically, if a legislative event happens that requires the state senate:

- 10 representatives of LC will roleplay as senators but OOCly (Like court roleplays that are made in some RP servers)

- NPC senators will have the same political distribution as the city council. For example, if democrats hold 60% of the city council, it'll be the same for the senate.

[Brett]

3 minutes ago, Ascendency said:

 

So in your proposal, you would just want to make the City Councilors OOC senators in the NPC State Senate? 

[Ascendency]

Just now, Brett said:

So in your proposal, you would just want to make the City Councilors OOC senators in the NPC State Senate? 

Definitely.

[Midsomer]

I have a third alternative that is in line with the current draft of the Liberty Constitution; it also resembles Proposal 2 and makes that proposal workable.  To understand the proposal, I'll begin with a quick recap of what the current draft of the Constitution does, and how its structure would play out.

 

 

1. The Liberty Constitution allows the Liberty Senate to "delegate" certain areas to be exclusively controlled by local governments in any subdivisions the Liberty Senate wishes to create.  By "delegate," it is meant that the Liberty Senate gives permission to the local governments to control certain areas.   

 

This would be done, generally, in two steps:

 

Step 1. > Liberty Senate creates a subdivision through a statute (e.g. the City of Liberty Act, or Alderney County Act) and in that statute, it spells out the structure of those governments (e.g. it has 1 mayor, and a city/county council made of whatever number of councilors or deputies, or what-have-you). 

 

Step 2. > the Liberty Senate can either:

(a) insert sections into that same Act which give exclusive control (e.g. "the city council shall have the power to determine the provision of education within its geographical limits"), or

(b) it can create an entirely separate statute that grants all subdivisions exclusive control in a certain area (e.g. the Local Education Act, which would contain provisions that grant exclusive control over education).

 

2.  The Liberty Senate would be an NPC which, in my view, should be controlled by FST/Faction Senate.

  

3.  The Constitution also grants local government exclusive control in seven areas, which the Liberty Senate is bound to observe.  This exclusive control is not revocable but its scope can be limited by the Liberty Senate.  These seven areas are: 

 

•  Procedures — Control over the procedures of its own council / deliberative bodies.
•  Land taxes — Control over local taxes on property and vacant land, and the power to collect / enforce that tax.
•  Housing and accommodation — Control over housing and other accommodation (e.g. short-term rentals, hotels, etc.) for its residents.
•  Local utilities — Control over sanitation, drainage, and other local utilities.
•  Local civil servants — Control over the qualifications, appointment and removal of police officers, prison guards, fire marshals, coroners and other local civil servants which the Liberty Senate may enable.
•  Miscellaneous permits and licenses — Control over any permits and licenses that are not otherwise governed by state law.
•  Incorporation — Control over the incorporation of private enterprise, and the conduct of local commerce not otherwise governed by the laws of Liberty.
  
  (Keep in mind that this Constitution is only a draft — if you think other areas should be added, please share your thoughts.  But also keep in mind that the Liberty Senate can delegate any area, even if it's not in the Constitution — those in the Constitution are just irrevocable whereas others can be granted and revoked at will.) 
   

This arrangement in the Constitution is preferable because, with exclusive control, the city council does not at all involve the Liberty Senate in any lawmaking.  The council truly has exclusivity.  No referral is necessary (under Proposal 1 above), nor would city council be treated as an IC state legislature (Proposal 2), nor would councilors be OOC senators (Ascendency's alternative).  

 

4.  What about areas that are outside of the Constitution; what if city council wants to expand its exclusive control to areas that are not in the Constitution?  For example, what if city council wants exclusive control over Vespucci University or education generally?  This is where OOC involvement comes into play.  A proposal would be made in, generally speaking, two steps:

 

Step 1. > City council would debate and draft a resolution using its own procedures; and in that resolution, it would ask for  exclusive control, identifying the specific area over which it wants control and the scope of that control. 

Step 2. >  It would then send that resolution to the Liberty Senate to be reviewed. The resolution would then be reviewed by FST/Faction Senate and, if granted, an enabling statute is drafted to delegate that power / control.  

 

 

 

 

[Neo]

6 minutes ago, Midsomer said:

I have a third alternative that is in line with the current draft of the Liberty Constitution; it also resembles Proposal 2 and makes that proposal workable.  To understand the proposal, I'll begin with a quick recap of what the current draft of the Constitution does, and how its structure would play out.

 

 

1. The Liberty Constitution allows the Liberty Senate to "delegate" certain areas to be exclusively controlled by local governments (city council and mayor) in any subdivisions the Liberty Senate wishes to create.  By "delegate," it is meant that the Liberty Senate gives permission to the local governments to control certain areas.   

 

This would be done, generally, in two steps:

 

Step 1. > Liberty Senate creates a subdivision through a statute (i.e. the City of Liberty Act, or Alderney County Act) and in that statute, it spells out the structure of those governments (i.e. it has 1 mayor, and a city/county council made of whatever number of councilors or deputies, or what-have-you). 

 

Step 2. > the Liberty Senate can either:

(a) insert sections into that same Act which give exclusive control (i.e. "the city council shall have the power to determine the provision of education within its geographical limits"), or

(b) it can create an entirely separate statute that grants all subdivisions exclusive control in a certain area (i.e. the Local Education Act, which would contain provisions that grant exclusive control over education).

 

2.  The Liberty Senate would be an NPC which, in my view, should be controlled by FST/Faction Senate.

  

3.  The Constitution also grants local government exclusive control in seven areas, which the Liberty Senate is bound to observe.  This exclusive control is not revocable but its scope can be limited by the Liberty Senate.  These seven areas are: 

 

•  Procedures — Control over the procedures of its own council / deliberative bodies 
•  Land taxes — Control over local taxes on property and vacant land, and the power to collect / enforce that tax
•  Housing and accommodation — Control over housing and other accommodation (i.e. short-term rentals, hotels, etc.) for its residents
•  Local utilities — Control over sanitation, drainage, and other local utilities;
•  Local civil servants — Control over the qualifications, appointment and removal of police officers, prison guards, fire marshals, coroners and other local civil servants which the Liberty Senate may enable.
•  Miscellaneous permits and licenses — Control over any permits and licenses that are not otherwise governed by state law; and
•  Incorporation — Control over the incorporation of private enterprise, and regulate the conduct of local commerce not otherwise governed by the laws of Liberty.
  
  (Keep in mind that this Constitution is only a draft — if you think other areas should be added, please share your thoughts.  But also keep in mind that the Liberty Senate can delegate any area, even if it's not in the Constitution — those in the Constitution are just irrevocable whereas others can be revoked at will) 

This arrangement in the Constitution is preferable because, with exclusive control, the city council does not at all involve the Liberty Senate in any lawmaking.  The council truly has exclusivity.  No referral is necessary (under Proposal 1 above), nor would city council act as an IC state legislature (Proposal 2), nor an OOC senators in the Liberty Senate (Ascendency's alternative).  

 

4.  What about areas that are outside of the Constitution; what if city council wants to expand its exclusive control to areas that are not in the Constitution?  For example, what if city council wants exclusive control over Vespucci University or education generally?  This is where OOC involvement comes into play.  A proposal would be made in, generally speaking, two steps:

 

Step 1. > City council would debate and draft a resolution using its own procedures; and in that resolution, it would ask for  exclusive control, identifying the specific area over which it wants control and the scope of that control. 

Step 2. >  It would then send that resolution to the Liberty Senate to be reviewed. The resolution would then be reviewed by FST/Faction Senate and, if granted, an enabling statute is drafted to delegate that power / control.  

 

 

 

 

This is actually pretty interesting, and might be worth consideration. Though, it’s worth noting that Vespucci University will be a private Ivy League university and will not be paid for by the taxpayer, thus falling outside government jurisdiction.

 

all in all though, I think based off Brett’s initial post alone, I’m more inclined to go for Proposal Two.

[Midsomer]

11 hours ago, Midsomer said:

 

 

4.  What about areas that are outside of the Constitution; what if city council wants to expand its exclusive control to areas that are not in the Constitution?  For example, what if city council wants exclusive control over Vespucci University or education generally?  This is where OOC involvement comes into play.  A proposal would be made in, generally speaking, two steps:

 

Step 1. > City council would debate and draft a resolution using its own procedures; and in that resolution, it would ask for  exclusive control, identifying the specific area over which it wants control and the scope of that control. 

Step 2. >  It would then send that resolution to the Liberty Senate to be reviewed. The resolution would then be reviewed by FST/Faction Senate and, if granted, an enabling statute is drafted to delegate that power / control.  

 

 

 

 

 

To avoid confusion, I want to clarify here that while this process involves an NPC/out-of-character body, it is not akin to an out-of-character amendment of the Constitution.  By delegating / granting control, the Liberty Senate is not amending the Constitution.  Rather, it is only exercising powers granted to it by the Constitution; the Liberty Senate has the power to create the subdivisions in any way it wishes, and to delegate responsibilities and powers onto those subdivisions in any way it wishes.  

[La Mala]

On 4/19/2022 at 12:57 PM, Brett said:

The idea is that it allows for an individual who is elected by the people to also be directly counter-balanced by someone who is appointed to look at matters relating to server stability in order to determine if legislation proposed and enacted will not be detrimental to server stability as a whole in the eyes of the holders of these positions.

This is what I'm leaning towards. I think server stability needs to be top priority.

Many factions only exist because of trends/policies that go back decades or even centuries. It would be very easy for a player-run government to purposefully or accidentally change what "realism" means in our version of NYC.

Change one thing about property, privatization, or zoning in Liberty City and suddenly factions are getting shut down, characters are getting evicted, businesses are getting shut down, entire storylines are changed in dramatic ways.

Change one thing about policing or criminal justice and it can be just as dramatic.

Here is an example for San Andreas: If the state government ended prison segregation by race, that would immediately shut down or change several factions, change the supply of weapons/drugs, change gender dynamics in criminal organizations, change the nature of street gangs, etc. Literally just one change by the government.

[deputy sheriff generalist]

On 4/19/2022 at 2:50 PM, Midsomer said:

I have a third alternative that is in line with the current draft of the Liberty Constitution; it also resembles Proposal 2 and makes that proposal workable.  To understand the proposal, I'll begin with a quick recap of what the current draft of the Constitution does, and how its structure would play out.

 

 

1. The Liberty Constitution allows the Liberty Senate to "delegate" certain areas to be exclusively controlled by local governments in any subdivisions the Liberty Senate wishes to create.  By "delegate," it is meant that the Liberty Senate gives permission to the local governments to control certain areas.   

 

This would be done, generally, in two steps:

 

Step 1. > Liberty Senate creates a subdivision through a statute (e.g. the City of Liberty Act, or Alderney County Act) and in that statute, it spells out the structure of those governments (e.g. it has 1 mayor, and a city/county council made of whatever number of councilors or deputies, or what-have-you). 

 

Step 2. > the Liberty Senate can either:

(a) insert sections into that same Act which give exclusive control (e.g. "the city council shall have the power to determine the provision of education within its geographical limits"), or

(b) it can create an entirely separate statute that grants all subdivisions exclusive control in a certain area (e.g. the Local Education Act, which would contain provisions that grant exclusive control over education).

 

2.  The Liberty Senate would be an NPC which, in my view, should be controlled by FST/Faction Senate.

  

3.  The Constitution also grants local government exclusive control in seven areas, which the Liberty Senate is bound to observe.  This exclusive control is not revocable but its scope can be limited by the Liberty Senate.  These seven areas are: 

 

•  Procedures — Control over the procedures of its own council / deliberative bodies.
•  Land taxes — Control over local taxes on property and vacant land, and the power to collect / enforce that tax.
•  Housing and accommodation — Control over housing and other accommodation (e.g. short-term rentals, hotels, etc.) for its residents.
•  Local utilities — Control over sanitation, drainage, and other local utilities.
•  Local civil servants — Control over the qualifications, appointment and removal of police officers, prison guards, fire marshals, coroners and other local civil servants which the Liberty Senate may enable.
•  Miscellaneous permits and licenses — Control over any permits and licenses that are not otherwise governed by state law.
•  Incorporation — Control over the incorporation of private enterprise, and the conduct of local commerce not otherwise governed by the laws of Liberty.
  
  (Keep in mind that this Constitution is only a draft — if you think other areas should be added, please share your thoughts.  But also keep in mind that the Liberty Senate can delegate any area, even if it's not in the Constitution — those in the Constitution are just irrevocable whereas others can be granted and revoked at will.) 
   

This arrangement in the Constitution is preferable because, with exclusive control, the city council does not at all involve the Liberty Senate in any lawmaking.  The council truly has exclusivity.  No referral is necessary (under Proposal 1 above), nor would city council be treated as an IC state legislature (Proposal 2), nor would councilors be OOC senators (Ascendency's alternative).  

 

4.  What about areas that are outside of the Constitution; what if city council wants to expand its exclusive control to areas that are not in the Constitution?  For example, what if city council wants exclusive control over Vespucci University or education generally?  This is where OOC involvement comes into play.  A proposal would be made in, generally speaking, two steps:

 

Step 1. > City council would debate and draft a resolution using its own procedures; and in that resolution, it would ask for  exclusive control, identifying the specific area over which it wants control and the scope of that control. 

Step 2. >  It would then send that resolution to the Liberty Senate to be reviewed. The resolution would then be reviewed by FST/Faction Senate and, if granted, an enabling statute is drafted to delegate that power / control.  

 

 

 

 

I think this looks pretty good or proposal #2. But most importantly, whatever system is in play, I think it's essential to be transparent about all OOC restrictions and have some approval process for politicians to utilize if they want to propose changing OOC restricted laws. 

[Celibano]

On 4/19/2022 at 10:50 PM, Midsomer said:

I have a third alternative that is in line with the current draft of the Liberty Constitution; it also resembles Proposal 2 and makes that proposal workable.  To understand the proposal, I'll begin with a quick recap of what the current draft of the Constitution does, and how its structure would play out.

 

 

1. The Liberty Constitution allows the Liberty Senate to "delegate" certain areas to be exclusively controlled by local governments in any subdivisions the Liberty Senate wishes to create.  By "delegate," it is meant that the Liberty Senate gives permission to the local governments to control certain areas.   

 

This would be done, generally, in two steps:

 

Step 1. > Liberty Senate creates a subdivision through a statute (e.g. the City of Liberty Act, or Alderney County Act) and in that statute, it spells out the structure of those governments (e.g. it has 1 mayor, and a city/county council made of whatever number of councilors or deputies, or what-have-you). 

 

Step 2. > the Liberty Senate can either:

(a) insert sections into that same Act which give exclusive control (e.g. "the city council shall have the power to determine the provision of education within its geographical limits"), or

(b) it can create an entirely separate statute that grants all subdivisions exclusive control in a certain area (e.g. the Local Education Act, which would contain provisions that grant exclusive control over education).

 

2.  The Liberty Senate would be an NPC which, in my view, should be controlled by FST/Faction Senate.

  

3.  The Constitution also grants local government exclusive control in seven areas, which the Liberty Senate is bound to observe.  This exclusive control is not revocable but its scope can be limited by the Liberty Senate.  These seven areas are: 

 

•  Procedures — Control over the procedures of its own council / deliberative bodies.
•  Land taxes — Control over local taxes on property and vacant land, and the power to collect / enforce that tax.
•  Housing and accommodation — Control over housing and other accommodation (e.g. short-term rentals, hotels, etc.) for its residents.
•  Local utilities — Control over sanitation, drainage, and other local utilities.
•  Local civil servants — Control over the qualifications, appointment and removal of police officers, prison guards, fire marshals, coroners and other local civil servants which the Liberty Senate may enable.
•  Miscellaneous permits and licenses — Control over any permits and licenses that are not otherwise governed by state law.
•  Incorporation — Control over the incorporation of private enterprise, and the conduct of local commerce not otherwise governed by the laws of Liberty.
  
  (Keep in mind that this Constitution is only a draft — if you think other areas should be added, please share your thoughts.  But also keep in mind that the Liberty Senate can delegate any area, even if it's not in the Constitution — those in the Constitution are just irrevocable whereas others can be granted and revoked at will.) 
   

This arrangement in the Constitution is preferable because, with exclusive control, the city council does not at all involve the Liberty Senate in any lawmaking.  The council truly has exclusivity.  No referral is necessary (under Proposal 1 above), nor would city council be treated as an IC state legislature (Proposal 2), nor would councilors be OOC senators (Ascendency's alternative).  

 

4.  What about areas that are outside of the Constitution; what if city council wants to expand its exclusive control to areas that are not in the Constitution?  For example, what if city council wants exclusive control over Vespucci University or education generally?  This is where OOC involvement comes into play.  A proposal would be made in, generally speaking, two steps:

 

Step 1. > City council would debate and draft a resolution using its own procedures; and in that resolution, it would ask for  exclusive control, identifying the specific area over which it wants control and the scope of that control. 

Step 2. >  It would then send that resolution to the Liberty Senate to be reviewed. The resolution would then be reviewed by FST/Faction Senate and, if granted, an enabling statute is drafted to delegate that power / control.  

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry in advance for the long and boring effort post. I fully agree with this proposal and somewhat agree with proposal 2, but in a completely different form.

 

I believe that the first proposal brings all In-Character legislative proposals up to a bilateral Out-of-Character decision between two separate people who channel their decisions through a fictive NPC to translate it in the In-Character world. I really don't like this for a couple of reasons: firstly, any "checks and balances" that will have to be discussed for any piece of legislation will become an Out-of-Character issue that is then rendered through a fictive Governor controlled by the Mayor and Chief Justice. While this is the closest solution to providing checks and balances for power,  this leaves in a lot of ambiguity as to what is detrimental to server 'stability'. If the Chief Justice or Mayor both disagree with each other, who has the power to mediate? Secondly, if the motivations for this diarchy is considering server stability,  it is beyond the scope of a Mayor or Chief Justice at an OOC level, since this is an OOC measure to avoid the consequences of a powerful Mayor upon the server.

 

It's redundant to maintain some degree of orthodoxy to imitating a plausible US government structure. Imitating the NYC municipal government is very difficult and relatively incompatible with what Liberty City provides us as a map asset, as lore, and what can be expressed into a credible imitation of it in a roleplay server. For example, look at the continuity problem between the mainland Liberty State and the city as a whole. It's also difficult to create an appropriate separation of state and municipal government since this needs reduction to be appropriate to our roleplay server. The delegation of powers between these two is also a stretch. I think these issues are a major waste of brain power and effort when things can be simplified.

 

I think the issue of differentiating state and local government should be put to rest. For this reason, I strongly believe that the government architecture should be changed to the portrayal of a de facto city state, but without cutting immersion or realism in any way shape or form. We should look to create our own variant of realism without straying away from its geographical context, so Liberty City stays as a portrayal of NYC and an American metropolis. However, from an administrative perspective, it's hard to stay true to American administrative structures while doing so realistically without sacrificing some roleplay freedoms.

 

 

 

 

I propose that our In-Character government follows the Hong Kong model. While Hong Kong is a completely different universe, the way it is organized as a special administrative region (in our case a special autonomous region since we're not Mao City Roleplay) and its relationship with the mainland People's Republic of China would completely solve the debate of state and municipal government, while providing high autonomy to the Liberty City government. The relationship between Hong Kong and the Chinese government is simple, and can be just as simple for us without complicating matters that will only exist on paper anyway (having a state government). While Hong Kong and China follow a "one country, two systems", this can separate Liberty City into its own bubble of existence without bringing relevance of state and exterior matters into the game, which would be imaginary anyway and not hold any weight.

 

Instead of having specific and targeted bits and pieces of the Constitution delegate powers to the municipal government, or make an overtly complex glossary of statutes that would complicate things, the state constitution of Liberty State would contain an article that either enables the creation of special administrative regions within the state or a fixed article that notes Liberty City as a special administrative region of Liberty State. Liberty State would have its own Basic Law, which would theoretically be a constitution, but could work as an organic law that dictates the roles, functions, institutions, procedures, regulations, of the executive and legislative branches of the Liberty City Government and not a full blown "We The People" supreme law, just a 'bureaucratic constitution'.

 

Being a 'special autonomous region' would mean Liberty City gets full autonomy in executive and legislative powers, with no judiciary autonomy, meaning the judiciary would be that of the state. The judiciary remains in the "state's domain" for the sake of simplification and awkwardness of high felons being convincted in municipal courts, so this wouldn't necessarily affect the judiciary in any way and would remain in its current form. Liberty City would not pay any taxes to the state government, so no double taxation, it's absolutely pointless to have all this financial posturing to a state government that wouldn't really exist, or maybe do it just for lore.

 

This would also be advantageous for the legislative branch. A simple Liberty City Council, with its representatives, can vote without any mental gymnastics or have major continuity issues for matters such as regulating firearms, taxation, business laws, which would usually be something voted by a state legislature. One criticism that I can see is the limit to these laws, so we don't get situations where the Liberty City Council votes on capital punishment or something. This would of course fall to common sense. With all of this autonomy, it's much easier to justify a procedure where a judge would have to review laws before the Mayor passes or vetoes a law without having to create a fictional OOC governor. The judge could just say to the Mayor that the law holds no standing and recommends a veto or something. This would also keep matters In-Character at all times without needing OOC measures. I also believe that the Faction Senate or FST monitor these things from time to time and use their deliberative powers to petition things that are against server stability. Writing and passing a law isn't something instantaneous or takes permanent surveillance by a whole team to address potential consequences to server stability within the laws passed by government.

 

This would dumb down everything into one and single entity, and that is the Liberty City Government, while the rest of the Liberty State Government is just a matter of symbolism with no roles or effect upon the In-Character world, besides the law and constitution. That means no Governor role, the only state roles would be within the judiciary.

 

To conclude, this would remove any state or municipal government. There would be the Liberty City Government, and Liberty City would be given the status of a 'special autonomous region'. The Liberty State Government would, theoretically, be a separate entity that has no relationship with what goes on in Liberty City. The Liberty State Constitution and the US Constitution remain supreme law, while the Liberty City Government functions on its own Basic Law which is a de facto constituting document of all LC Government. The only place where there would be no autonomy is in the judiciary, which would be the state's, for the reasons mentioned above.

 

For the record, I'm not arguing for a full blown city-state and hope that I wrote my idea concise enough. Yes, LC would be in America, would still use the US dollar, would still be US territory, would still speak English, not actually be Hong Kong, would not be ran by the National People's Congress of China, bla bla bla. I still think the Liberty City Government should be imitating or reinterpreting real NYC municipal institutions or NYC government branding aesthetics to the fullest, but no full blown orthodoxy in terms of administration and structure, since this orthodoxy is impossible. It would go against our server's philosophy towards roleplay freedoms. At the end of the day, we're playing a game, and if this thing is done right there's no sacrifices to immersion. We create our own thing, while doing it right, with the real world in mind. If things are somewhat less complicated, a little more lax, and as concise as possible, there's all to be gained.