Jun 19, 17 / Leo 02, 01 05:56 UTC

Constitution - rejected  

I've been trying to post for the last 3 days without success (because of alleged site issues). Now I came back to check the outcame of the bad constitution proposal and I was decided to remain quiet since many already said what I think about it, but I have to write this. Forgive me if I'm just repeating what many brothers and sisters are saying. I just need to express myself.

I've been very excited about Asgardia since the beginning, but as the time passes I get more and more concerned about the practical issues and the future of the concept.

The Constitution is far from good, at least for me, and some aspects don't let me be happy about it anymore.

The word 'equality' is used a lot, as it should really be of course, but in the very beginning we get surprised by the Constitutional Monarchy denomination. There is no equality in a Monarchy. Look back and you can see only so many examples of how self-proclaimed monarchies ended up really bad.

I wonder: what's wrong with a democratic government? Do we really need a 'King' or this is just the will of a man's ego? Sorry, but it's all that seems to me.

Some can say 'there is democracy in Constitutional Monarchy just like in Parlamentarism' but reading the Constitution we can see that is not the case. Much power is being atributed to the Commander-in-Chief. And that much is never a good thing. We have great examples of Constitutional Monarchy like Sweden, where the king has a more representative and ceremonial function. We can't talk about equality if all the power will remain on one man's hands.

And why do we have to accept this 'draft' to move forward? That sends a message that if you don't agree with this document you can't even discuss it. You are automatically denied. That's dictatorship.

And now we're talking about taxes? Taxes are the form of income a State has to use in favor of its citizens, like health, education, infrastructure. But we don't have concrete plans yet, only ideas and virtual concepts we're still working on. That is the kind of detail that must be part of a legal document if its approval defines who is and who is not an asgardian. Will Asgardia employ me, so a share of my payment will be reverted back to the State? Will Asgardia build a school for our kids? Hospitals for all of us?

Also, there's this internet popularity contest to become a candidate in the elections. No projects, no platform, no debate. Just get your buddies to vote for you and you're on the way. Seriously?

Something like this needs a lot of time to be discussed, with tons of revisions and new versions. Not like this. For now, just like a bunch of people, I guess I won't be a 'full' asgardian anymore. To the present Constitution I say no.

  Last edited by:  Christian Fiorin Gama (Asgardian)  on Jun 19, 17 / Leo 02, 01 05:57 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Jun 19, 17 / Leo 02, 01 23:37 UTC

Just to add something here. Is the staff shamelessly posting lies on social media???


Jun 20, 17 / Leo 03, 01 02:08 UTC


I am sure it was a honest mistake and a simple typo and not a "blatant" lie.

We are all human and make mistakes.

Jun 21, 17 / Leo 04, 01 04:44 UTC

Maybe. But after all the absurds we're reading, I wouldn't be so sure.

Jun 22, 17 / Leo 05, 01 02:17 UTC

Misleading publicity works before its correction. But anyway, how about apologizing for saying that the Constitution would be put to vote until 6-18 and not taking it down 3 days later? And for saying it would need the majority to be approved (what clearly didn't happen)? Or for not letting us vote 'No'?