Leo 24, 01 / Jul 11, 17 12:58 UTC

Re: Asgardia Cannot be a Constitutional Monarchy  

Dude just wants to make himself a king.

It's scary how oppressive and dictatorship-like this become, and how quickly, in 20 years on Earth, those of us left will probably all be ruled by russia or china, why would I want to leave the planet, to be ruled by someone else? This constitution currently is a POS that I would never sign. It should not reflect antiquity and existing failing societies that we are all trying to leave..

Leo 25, 01 / Jul 12, 17 14:29 UTC

Monarchies are a parasitic blot on humanity's past (and some places present) - it must be abolished. Asgardia cannot be a monarchy (of any shape or form).

Vir 05, 01 / Jul 20, 17 23:15 UTC

No creo que una tecnocracia sea ideal para un estado espacial, ya que no sería diferente de la plutocracia, donde unos tienen poder, mientras que otros son discriminados por su comercio o artes independientes de conocimiento tecnológico, creo que la monarquía Propuesto por Asgardia es Ideal, que debe ser ajustado un poco, es cierto, pero necesitamos un líder, un soberano como jefe de Estado para regular el poder de parlamentarios y ministros, según la constitución, también el soberano está sujeto a la Constitución y el pueblo Asgardiano, porque es la constitución el regulador máximo, que dicta al soberano, y más poderes para hacer y no hacer.

Los sistemas presidenciales son los menos democráticos que he visto, con su voto usted le da poder a un candidato, y esto con el poder que le dio el pueblo hace cosas contrarias e impopulares para el pueblo.

Viva la monarquía constitucional.

I do not believe that a technocracy is ideal for a spatial state, since it would not be different from the plutocracy, where some have power, while others are discriminated against by their trade or independent arts of technological knowledge, I believe that the monarchy proposed by Asgardia is Ideal , Which must be adjusted a bit, it is true, but we need a leader, a sovereign as head of state to regulate the power of parliamentarians and ministers, according to the constitution, also the sovereign is subject to the Constitution and the Asgardian people, The constitution the supreme ruler, dictating to the sovereign, and more powers to do and not to do.

The presidential systems are the least democratic I have seen, with your vote you give power to a candidate, and this with the power that gave the people do things contrary and unpopular for the people.
Long live the constitutional monarchy. (mod edit)
 translation shane watt, 07.20.17

This post has been translated using *Google Translate*.  Please keep this in mind that this forum uses *English* as a base language at this moment, however you are able to use your native language in the *Regional Forums* that applies to you. 

  Last edited by:  Shane Watt (Asgardian, Global Mod)  on Vir 06, 01 / Jul 21, 17 02:05 UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: translation shane watt, 07/20/17

Vir 06, 01 / Jul 21, 17 13:34 UTC

So, let me to understand, @Sley, you're against a technocracy "since it would not be different from the plutocracy(1), where some have power, while others are discriminated" but you prefer a monarchy as "we need a leader, a sovereign as head of state"?
Can't see at least the logic, in your statements.

(1) completely your assumption, not proven by existing documentation and experience:

Technocracy is a system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge.Scientists, engineers, technologists, or experts in any field, would compose the governing body, instead of elected representatives.
(cit. wikipedia )

Plutocracy (Greek: πλοῦτος, ploutos, 'wealth' + κράτος, kratos, 'rule') or plutarchy, is a form of oligarchy and defines a society ruled or controlled by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens.
(cit. wikipedia)

the two things seems different a lot to me, and Asgardia seems, by means of its Constitutional draft, more similar to the second, being Igor a billionaire and the owner of the company which owns Asgardia's trademark.

Sco 10, 01 / Sep 19, 17 07:27 UTC


[Mod Edit]
Translation: "As a student with a slight understanding of history, I am not in favor of defining Asgadia as a "kingdom" in the constitution. First of all, although the constitutional right of administrative power is not "king order". But if the Asgadia is defined as the "kingdom", it is equivalent to the identity of "Asgadia can exist in the king." Although constitutional builders may wish to establish "constitutional monarchy" as in Britain. But if someone tries to build a highly centralized dictator "king" in Asgadia through this loophole, then the constitution will turn into a piece of paper, and Asgadia's initial idea may not Re-exist. Constitution is the cornerstone of a national law, the word difference, will produce thousands of miles away. For the dangers of dictatorship, I believe that the Asiatic people who are now living in different countries have a certain degree of understanding. We do not want this political system that has been proved countless times by human history that is not suitable for modern society. As we go into space together, even 0.01% may not work. Therefore, I agree with this statement, can not let Asgadia to "kingdom" in the form of existence."

-Syafriza Bakri, September 20th 2017, 1:55 PM UTC

*Note* This translation was made by Google Translate. Please make sure when using the forums to copy/paste the English translation below your comment in your native language. This ensures that all persons interested in reading your post are able to understand it. Thank you for understanding.

  Last edited by:  SyafrizaBakri (Asgardian)  on Sco 11, 01 / Sep 20, 17 13:59 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Translation

Cap 00, 01 / Dec 2, 17 22:23 UTC

Honestly, the whole governmental setup is completely uninspiring. A governmental system should be considered which reflects the Supreme Values or other similar philosophical values. This is too much like the standard terrestrial governments without all of the protections built in. 

Perhaps we should work towards a Social (values driven) Technocracy (science and technology) government where science and technology is driven to support the people, guided and moderated by such philosophical ideas such as:

* Interdependence
* Sustainability
* Justice and Compassion
* Equity
* Education

We will have the Technocractic balanced and guided by the Social Philosophical aspects who goals would be set by the government. 

* Council of Asgardian Values (organization representing the values and philosoph)
* Council of Science and Technology (organization representing the collective science and technology professionals and ideals)
* Government (sets goals)

  Last edited by:  James O'Neill (Asgardian)  on Cap 01, 01 / Dec 3, 17 02:02 UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Cap 09, 01 / Dec 11, 17 15:13 UTC

@James ONeill
Perhaps we should work towards a Social (values driven) Technocracy (science and technology) government where science and technology is driven to support the people, guided and moderated by such philosophical ideas (...)

Believe it or not, James, that have been tried, in the past (at the time the Constitution was written, just to say).
On the other side, it seems the king preferred the "kingdom" way, we really don't understand why.

Cap 09, 01 / Dec 11, 17 18:56 UTC

That is deeply saddening to hear.
It makes me think of ulterior motives. =(

Kingdom = autocracy.
Kingdom = bad.

A rather large bunch of consitutional reforms need to be done when parliament starts.
The kingdom crap has to go for it is the antithesis of the very values and philosophical foundations of Asgardia.

Cap 09, 01 / Dec 11, 17 23:21 UTC

I like to think that the founders simply thought that "Space KINGDOM" sounded more flashy, and flashy is more appealing to potential investors. Although, given that this entire project has been the brain-child of one man, it wouldn't surprise me to think that he would like to think of himself as Asgardia's king, if not in practice than just in his own head. I suppose we'll find out how the balance of power equals out after the elections in March.

Cap 17, 01 / Dec 19, 17 20:05 UTC

My post here goes over the major constitutional autocratic problems that may lead to tyranny:

The Constitution of Asgardia: Stepping Stones to Tyranny


Cap 18, 01 / Dec 20, 17 16:43 UTC

@James I know you mean well, but posting your link in several threads kinda comes across as forum spamming. It's not my place to tell you how to conduct yourself, but I'd advise you to stick to one thread. We don't want any mods breathing down your neck. :) 

To keep this post in topic, I agree with most of James' points in his document, but there are a couple of things I want to point out:

First, in point 4, which deals with Subjective morality, he asks to define Moral Ideals, in regards to Articles 17.4.a, 22.5 and 23.3 in Asgardia's constitution. I would argue that the Declaration of Unity of Asgardia and the Supreme Values (Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 Article 4, respectively) lays out Asgardia's moral ideals rather plainly.

In point 5, he argues that Article 26, which protects Asgardia's national symbols from desecration, could lead to enforced nationalism, and that only authoritarian regimes like "Myanmar and fundamentalist Islamic countries" have such laws. However, European countries like Spain, France, Greece and Germany have laws prohibiting desecration of their flags (I'm using the flag as a symbol as that's the simplest example I can find.) Even the United States has laws that state specific prohibitions on use of their flag, such as forbidding its use as disposable paper napkins or using it as apparel--however those particular laws are rarely enforced. My point is, most countries have some sort of legislation regarding official symbols, and protecting them is not necessarily an indicator of authoritarianism. 

Cap 18, 01 / Dec 20, 17 17:49 UTC

I think it would be useful to stop thinking about why it can't be a monarchy and start thinking how Asgardia can be called instead. I think I already said it somewhere else but it would be useful if the name was more original. Forget about the world as we know it and think of the future growth - democracies/republics/unions/commonwealths, they are all loosing its "luaster" if you ask me... The old system falls apart, people lose faith in their governments/politics and their ability to rule. Do we really want Asgardia to be viewed as such? Same thing again?  Monarchy brings something more unique to the table and simply stated - sounds cool. But it's bad, as many people already said. We don't want to give that kind of impression. The problem is to come up with a name that is new but... at the same time isn't "off" (so Asgardia isn't treated as a joke, even more so than usual...).

Cap 20, 01 / Dec 22, 17 02:16 UTC

What I am getting from that is that you think maybe we should be a monarchy, but not call ourselves a monarchy. Am I reading that right, or were you meaning something different?

Cap 20, 01 / Dec 22, 17 03:11 UTC

On the point of the name asgardia being trademarked it can't be at least in the USA it's symbols that's a diff story. At least so says the US copyright and patent office. I know I checked with them . Yes dictatorship is the way I have a feeling this is gonna slide, but I'll wait alirtlw longer to see

Cap 25, 01 / Dec 27, 17 17:47 UTC

Am I reading that right, or were you meaning something different?

For now it seems we are a monarchy but it doesn't matter as much as uniquness of Asgardia's name and Asgardian spirit do - what I'm saying is we need a bit different, attractive name, no matter how the governmental structure looks like. 

And please, don't worry about dictatorship, people. We are not there yet to worry about THAT. Let's start with some basics first.