No one seems to think that could actually happen even though it is highly possible. To answer your question Jason sure I would, in fact I would be more weary of a species that did not broadcast things into space that did not give off that impression! I mean, knowing that a species who has a violent nature towards that which they do not understand. Has established any kind of permanent settlement in space. Is reason enough to at least keep an eye on them to see how things go. It is my firm belief that is exactly the line of thought advanced beings from elsewhere in the galaxy and verse would follow in said situation. It makes the most sense after all this way you will gain more intell than if you merely stayed away. Besides that it would actually be less dangerous for any visiting race to establish relations with a space based colony than it would be to make a planetary stop. Actually kronos if that were to happen it would hve happened by now

*Personal Opinion:* I think that even if E.T did exist the chances of him using all those resourced just to come to Earth and say "Hello" would not be likely.... Plus for the last 50 years we have been broadcasting movies into outer space with a general theme of *"stay away or we will destroy you"*. Be honest if you were E.T and saw that would you still pop in for coffee??

I'm no economist, nor an expert on this matter. But if we are talking about a distant future space nation, we should consider the fact that the environment and circumstances are going to be different. First of all, the concept of money would be unnecessary and even impractical, as there will be no resources to base its worth on ( like we do it here on earth for gold or other materials) For all we know, our primary object is to protect the earth of space threats and do scientific progress, all while maintaining our lives there. And as it began, so should it be after - We are here because we wanted to be here. We wanted to realize the dream of a great space nation, proving the world that an utopia is not only a dream, but our main quest of humanity. Therefore I suggest a more social and even commune approach. This doesn't mean that we are going to be a poor dictatorship, but there is no point in being rich in space. Everyone is going to work hard ( and in accordance with what qwerty stated - their inputs ) for Asgardia. A monetary system, in which there are banks and loans and debt would only drag us back, even enslave us to the earthian rich, who support us for their gain. I can only see that that system cannot work out of earth. That on the other hand doesn't mean that there will be no social classes. I think it is nearly impossible for everyone to be equal - I agree with qwerty on this subject. There must be some kind of chain of command, and degrading jobs compared to others. Second, labor; As we will need to be very efficient and productive, each member of society would work in the area that fits them most. I suppose the education system would need to change, too. I know it may sound like some kind of technocrat system... But I know that we cannot just take the historic concepts of earth into space. We need to evolve and adjust ourselves to space.

I think it would be interesting to mention that within some communities/nations there is something called ''wealth-control''. This ensures that no one person/entity accumalates wealth that could provoke undesireable wealth inbalance. I believe Tristan Da Cuna uses this system and even though the island is British it apparantly has worked ....Worth noting?

Here is a post that I made a little while ago on another thread that outlined a concept that can provide a space habitat with adequate radiation and ballistic shielding. -------------------------------------------------------------------- I see a lot of discussion about mining near earth asteroids or similar and then building a separate station from the resources obtained. Just putting a somewhat alternate idea out there - why not combine the two exercises in one and do broader humanity a service as well. There are plenty of large(ish) Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs) that wander through our solar system that may, one day, pose a collision risk with Earth. Some examples are 2001 WN5 (about 900m in diameter), 2004 MN4 (about 320m in diameter) and 2010 YU55 (about 400m in diameter). Capturing one, stabilising it's orbit (perhaps using EM drives), hollowing out the inside and using the resources recovered for fabrication of necessary materials and components offers many advantages. The most obvious one is removing a potential threat to the Earth from an extinction level event impact, but there are many, many more. The shell of the asteroid can also double as radiation / debris shielding, eliminating a major cost of establishing a space habitat. The necessary thickness can be created by the mining process. By having a hollowed cylindrical section in the asteroid, and providing the asteroid with an axial spin, you create artificial gravity. Covering the exterior of the asteroid with solar panels (that could be constructed in space from the materials mined from the asteroid) provides power supply with minimal need for battery storage due to the axial spin in that there are always solar panels facing the sun. I realise there are many unexplored engineering challenges here, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility and the concept is a good and efficient one. With current technology, a lot of the work can be automated and/or remotely directed. The UN "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" does pose some legal challenges to doing this, but I think this is where the genius in Igor's plan to have Asgardia as part of the UN comes in. Article XV of this treaty allows for any "State Party to the Treaty" to propose amendments to the treaty. Given that this treaty was first adopted in 1967, where the primary concern was being nuked from orbit, it is probably time that it is reviewed.

Actually Coldwind and Antonio you are both mistaken for example, freedom is not a man made concept and thoughts are indeed free. Freedom is like reality you are born into it. From the time of your infancy to the time certain forces such as parents and society. Start exerting influence upon how you think, what you think, what you feel or should feel, how you should respond to events that take place, and so much more. Your thoughts and actions are your own no outside power has any influence over you and that is what is called being free! While thoughts are free and it can be proven with a simple experiment. Cut yourself off from television, radio, and the net for a month, while doing that keep a list of the products you do not buy, and list the reason/s why you did not buy them. One of your reasons will be because of the lack of advertisements influencing your decisions. Thoughts are free, but they are also targetted for manipulation in an attempt to separate you from your money, garner your support for a cause whatever it maybe, and whether folks want to believe it or not to control you and others. What makes thoughts free is not the period of time during which they are had. Rather it is the lack of influence from outside powers, which means every thought you ever had without having been influenced by an ad, slogan, or other expression has been free!

Actually Coldwind and Antonio you are both mistaken for example, freedom is not a man made concept and thoughts are indeed free. Freedom is like reality you are born into it. From the time of your infancy to the time certain forces such as parents and society. Start exerting influence upon how you think, what you think, what you feel or should feel, how you should respond to events that take place, and so much more. Your thoughts and actions are your own no outside power has any influence over you and that is what is called being free! While thoughts are free and it can be proven with a simple experiment. Cut yourself off from television, radio, and the net for a month, while doing that keep a list of the products you do not buy, and list the reason/s why you did not buy them. One of your reasons will be because of the lack of advertisements influencing your decisions. Thoughts are free, but they are also targetted for manipulation in an attempt to separate you from your money, garner your support for a cause whatever it maybe, and whether folks want to believe it or not to control you and others. What makes thoughts free is not the period of time during which they are had. Rather it is the lack of influence from outside powers, which means every thought you ever had without having been influenced by an ad, slogan, or other expression has been free!

The freedom we can think of is where all our relationships are accepted without any repression, relationships in the general sense and not just in the sexual sense. We can think of such a world without oppression and freedom but there is still a big problem ahead; "Thought is never free." Desire when it has no origin in a primitive instinct has, of course, its origin in a thought, which means that our desires are not free, not even our desire for freedom is a free thought. Thoughts are never free. Because thoughts depend on memory and memory is the past and not the present where there is freedom, so thought is the past where there is no freedom. No one can have freedom in the past because he is immutable. So when you relate to each other try not to think about how that person was in the past, always be aware of the present, the moment you are relating, you will notice some changes in the person, when this happens you have already been to the past, you are no longer paying attention.

Not very long at all Jason, you are supposed to set up everything you would need before you even create the ministries the ideas are to serve! Besides, I was specifically referring to the period after everything has been setup. So one maybe two years is in my opinion a sufficient amount of time. To implement some of the policies one may have in mind. If we gave elected officials more time than two years in office. We run the risk of corruption ruining the political scene in Asgardia. The longer one has power the more used to having that power they become. Which means it could become harder for them to accept losing that power when that time comes and that could lead to bigger problems. There are other potential problems as well. Problems that can be avoided by limiting the amount of time each minister spends in office. Oh, and, the eficacy of a ministry is not affected by the maximum number of terms the minster can serve. It is however, affected by whether or not the office is run competently!

My question: How long does it take to turn an idea into a active government scheme or system? Would the next person in office have to continue setting up an initiative from the previous office? Allowing for a single to person to not gain too much power is one thing, but if its counter intuitive to the efficiency...

I disagree with you Nathan and think three to four years is too long. The idea is to limit the amount of power any one official has and giving them three to four years is not how that is done. There is also the chance that having the power of whatever office they hold for so long will have a negative effect on them. Also if a person needs three plus years to settle in to their new position. There is a very good chance that they are not ready for the job which the campaigned for. Two years is in my opinion more than enough time

My answer is no. Because Politics is Cerruption and political parties are just as worse. Here in America the liberal snowflakes are still complaining about presidential candidate lost and Obama along the Democratic and half of the Republican party is accusing Russia for a Crime that they didn't commit. All Because they got caught red handed over the face of cerruption. All political parties are brought by the ruling class of Elite Globalist that's been responsible for the War on drugs and terror in which case it was a nightmare and a failure. Also having political parties has been widening the income gap between the rich and poor. It's becoming out of control and a new system without money, Elites, Political parties, and beliefs of state would be the way to go if we do not want same problems that earth nations have.

There shouldn't be any need for political parties, IMHO, because we can make all our own decisions, collectively. Much in the same manner we are progressing in various directions currently with regards to arguing amongst ourselves about what we should actually be doing, as much as how we should be doing it. Any "key position" within "government" should(IMHO) be held by common consensus, preferably selected from those qualified to deal with the subject in question. By qualified, I don't necessarily mean academics. With ministries devoting to various topics, our "experts" in these fields should naturally migrate in order to offer their input and guidances, so for any given topic there should be a plentyful supply of rational input. I don't think there's much requirement for a "leader" as such, but understand some would feel the requirement for, and there can be purpose behind a single figurehead. For some considerable time the only offering I'd accept for such a position would be Igor Ashurbeyli, partially out of respect for his rights to his creation, but mostly to ensure not only the foundations but the entire initial period(and if you do that right, by extension, the rest of growth) progresses within tollerences of his vision of it.

I disagree VSE, there are many examples of forms of government that are contradictory to the idea that politics and corruption go hand in hand. Just look at small villages for example. They still rely on elders, wise people, and so on and corruption is not a problem in regards to their leadership. Favoritism is not even a thing in modern politics. Politicians do not have favorites they are simply paid off and that is where the corruption comes in