Suggestions by Asgardians go here for clauses of our ethical constitution. I'll be coming with some well thought clauses at the earliest convenience. Possibly tomorrow.

Mod Edit These sound like wonderful ideas for the constitution. I have moved this topic to the forum where we are currently writing the constitution for consideration of this addition. Jewell Ledoux, 1/2/2017, 11:38am

Clause One:

1.1 Asgardia is a free community. It based on knowledge, compassion, kindness and love. Asgardia is based on freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of communication and freedom of movement.

1.2 In respect to (1.1), any freedom is bounded by respecting the freedoms of other Asgardians.

1.3 An Asgardian is both a pure and strong human-being. An Asgardian wants the best for its fellow Asgardians. Asgardians with collectively on promoting the concepts of love, collaboration, respect and compassion between them. An Asgardian shall always seek to acquire more knowledge utilising resources available, and/or the knowledges of other Asgardians if need be.

Any input?

Any officical decisions made by Asgardia will undergo testing using the a double verification method before being implemented. (Much like a double blind study)

Well we will have to be sanctioned by UN, so we will have to follow the UN's policy's.....

Soooo this should cover alot: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

about the term "human being", in fact in the early times is fine, but what happens if other "terrestrial beings" or "non-terrestrial beings", or artificial intelligence were in the near future, in fact, get an interaction that Rights / duties very similar to human rights. Is it not reasonable to mention these issues from first time?

That was an interesting input, kseltar.

Love thy neighbor as thy self

1) The Asgardian government will answer to the public of Asgardia in all matters if any member of said government is found to have misbehaved in an official capacity 2) The Asgardian government shall NOT of it's own accord be able to decide what information the public needs to know, what it does not need to know, and be able to with hold any information from the public. Other than each official's personal information 3) Asgardians shall have the freedom to express any opinion they may have as long as said opinion does not instigate or condone unlawful behavior 4) Laws that would infringe on the freedoms of the public shall be dismissed by Asgardian law makers 5) The privacy of Asgardians shall be respected by other Asgardians unless the interfering Asgardian has probable cause to involve themselves. Examples being child abuse, child exploitation, and so on. 6) Asgardian law makers are obligated to share all information about any threat a child may encounter free of charge with the parents of the children. Because a parent is and should always be a child's first line of defense when the child is unable to protect themselves 7) Parents not societal role models are responsible for the upbringing of their offspring 8) The Asgardian government shall be obligated to provide folks with the tools they need for rehabilitation. This mainly refers to prisoners but also applies to those who have yet to comit any crimes but feel that they may and that includes all crimes! 9) The Asgardian government is obligated to protect it's citizen's privacy from foreign powers. Unless credible evidence is presented showing that Asgardian has committed a crime in the nation that is seeking information on the accused. By credible I mean information that has been found to be valid by an Asgardian official after he/she has opened up their own investigation

Excuse me if I rant for a moment but again, why is there this incessant need to codify morality? Morality is the realm of culture and personal religion and duty to civics and community; to enshrine duty and morality into constitutional law takes us down Orwell’s path of big brother where only the state can be pure, the rest of us forever damaged and corruptible.

I wish to have a debate in constitutional limits on government, not the citizenry and a few people have made an initial effort but the majority have tended to ignore their posts, favoring these types of postings where the discussions tread the edges of distopian tyrannies of government controls over culture and society at large.

We have a rare and unique opportunity to draft a new version of universal democracy and it is incumbent on us to recognize not only the flaws in ourselves but in our current governments and seek to specify constitutional language to limit such errors from being recreated once again.

For example, (and previously mentioned by myself or others…) we should codify limits and things that prevent the government from becoming a career of professional elites; prevent the government from spending our children’s future by limiting or abolishing debt, prevent the government from ‘taking’ from it’s people such as by eminent domain or asset forfeiture (common in the U.S.) and so many other interesting topics that have not even been discussed at any length in the Constitutional Forum - spying, monetary policy, armed forces, how and when it is legal to use military force, treaty process and policy, basic form of government(s), election process and term, term limits, the list is extensive but it requires serious debate, not petty discussions of duty and morality, that is shaped and formed by our collective culture and the norms we wish to accept or reject, to codify leads to zealotry and moral self destruction.

I am strongly opposed to the implementation of morality into legal codes, too. Morality is inherently divisive, the good shall prosper under a moral legal code, the evil shall suffer. The difference between a criminal and moral degenerate becomes indistinguishable. The inherent subjectivity means that judgments will always be fundamentally arbitrary, but the sentences shall be cold, objective, and cruel (in the Hobbesian sense).

I think Rick D put it very well. The law should be a set of deontic rules, setting the scope, conditions, and limitations on the use of power between actors, both individuals and institutions.

The law should set rights, rules that say no one may interfere in an action without due process as defined in the law. The law should set privileges, rules that say who, when, how, why, and how it will paid for for some individual to be given a power that others do not have by default. The law should set statuses, defining who has what authority over whom where when why and how.

I would highly recommend to everyone interested in our constitution and how to make it ensure we enjoy human rights in space to read John Searle's Making the Social World. It talks extensively about the fundamental formal structure of deontic powers in human groups and the last chapter is a very well considered argument for why human rights, as they are largely agreed on already, are crucial for allowing social groups to function well.

https://www.amazon.com/Making-Social-World-Structure-Civilization-ebook/dp/B0031OQ0OW/ref=laB000AP7LL61_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486146393&sr=1-10

@Rick D & @sammwich , 

1++; // I completely agree with your sentiments and rationale. 

I'm disappointed that so many seem bent on trying to define every little detail when we should work on the limitations of government as opposed to the limits on society.

  1** against "morality by law"
  Something I may agree, will be to have some kind of "guidelines", not other, and sure not by law.

@Rick D, You are right, we do have an incredibly rare opportunity here - the people can and should have strong input to the behavior of Government, and its limitations.  But at the same time, it is important that we establish a general (not necessarily enforced) moral code for people - if not just for something to advise that we teach our children.

This isn't like other countries.  We have a long term goal of peace and prosperity of all humanity and it will go a long way if we can establish the public opinion of morality now and watch it change over time as some challenges are resolved and new ones arise.

This could highlight points where government and civilian morals can intersect.  Remember - we expect that one day this nation will survive in the harshness of outer space.  If we say the preservation of human life is to be a priority, and you are to receive a signal from a manned satellite that has had some kind of failure resulting in the loss of crew.  You are the only satellite/ship in range that can divert course or shift out of your orbital path in time to save the crew, but the diversion and return to your current orbital range and positioning is a costly yet necessary operation for your livelihood.  Saving the crew would preserve human life, but could cost you a years profit, which then could result in depression and poverty for yourself and family.  What if we decided now that we took a note of the laws of robotics here: Asgardians should not harm other humans, or through inaction, allow other humans come to harm - so long as interceding does not have a notable negative impact on the Asgardian.  By this standard, our friends on the satellite are still dead.  But what if we agreed the government would reimburse those would intercede where the reach of government officials or rescue parties was not convenient or even viable?  I'm not saying the government should then foot the bill for every disparity used to preserve human life, but I definitely wouldn't oppose testing the idea pending economic status as it would help remove some of the blurred lines and tough decisions that can cause hesitation or refusal to act.  

It's also worth noting that we should reach early agreements on certain issues that could lead to instability in the long term.  For example, the issue of homosexuality is still cause for major unrest on Earth.  If we are going to be a progressive nation, we should teach that homosexuality is OK, and frowning upon it is considered immoral.  Reasonably, you could state that to argue anything is immoral, you should state that it has a negative impact on your feelings and provide a valid and understandable reason as to why.  For the most part, people should not have the right to make decisions for other people unless they can substantially argue a negative impact.  Straight people shouldn't be able to stop consenting parties being married on the basis that "they don't like it".  If we raise future Asgardians to be tolerant of this, then it will become a non issue in a few generations.

Looking at issues such as extraterrestrial life, which at the moment is a non issue and given likely distances to any race that resembles civilization or intelligence it is likely to remain a non issue until the Sun goes Red Giant or Andromeda collides with the Milky way.  But we don't know it won't be an issue.  Probability doesn't always favor the likely. Historically, humans don't like what is different to them.  It may be hundreds of thousands of years before we meet an alien civilization - if ever.  But the fact of the matter is it could happen one day.  And if Asgardians are raised to be accepting of all creatures great and small, and any and all intelligence that may or may not exist, we stand a greater chance of avoiding an interstellar war.

I think it's fair to say we should at least discuss a moral code, and while not necessarily putting in place we could collect data on it.  Going back to a previous example, we could say "tolerate homosexuality" (along with many other ethical statements) and simply have Asgardians decide in an app whether they agree or disagree.  We could publicly display the percentage of Asgardia that agrees alongside those who don't.  We could take a moral code survey once a year and watch the morals of the nation shift, ask ourselves why?  What are we doing right?  What are we doing wrong?  What are the people likely to want as a response?

We are a nation built on science.  We believe in cause and effect, and we believe in studying that relationship for the good of humanity.  At the very least, we need to do things differently to Earth.  Every citizen needs to contribute and work as a team to get this whole thing off the ground (heh heh... puns...), in every conveniently and non-invasive method possible.  And we should start trying to get it right from the start.