Personally, I feel we could take a look at all types of government and try build our own, but it wouldn't have been tested until we test and then we may fail. If we take a look at what others have done, we could try to build on what we feel has worked for other governments. This is also based on what each person feels does work. It may not seem that way to others, though.
I really love this argument. We all know that there is nothing new under the sun. So, obviously, whatever we design will be influenced by what we already know. The question here is, what is it about the government systems we know that make them inadequate? And if we know what the problem is (defining the problem is usually half the solution), what sort of measures can we implement to ensure we eliminate the undesirable parts?
I think we have a lot of material to work with. We don't really have the excuse of saying that we don't know if or how something will work because we have a large body of political history documenting the things that have worked and the things that haven't. With the addition of showing us why those things didn't work. So why is it that a discussion of such an idea sparks such skepticism?
Unfortunately, I do not believe it to be possible under the current economic environment of the world. As long as there are inequities in the world, there will be those who have and those who have not.
OK. I get what you are saying, but we are not trying to govern the world here -- we are only concerned with Asgardia. The world already has its systems. As far as that goes, we have a competitive advantage over "the world," and that is, we have a blank slate and empirical evidence of what works and what doesn't.
What I get from your comment is that the government is base purely on economics. To which I say, well, that doesn't apply to Asgardia since our premise is of a different nature.
This is a great direction. The issue here is who defines a ministry and who becomes a minister. In other words, in order for us to get to the point you describe, where we are able to petition the government, we need to design that basic structure in which the different parts of the government will sit (minister, head of state, etc) first.
See, what I'm trying to get to here is what approach would a scientifically inclined mind take in order to start the design process of a new form of government? Well, he/she would probably use some form of the scientific method, probably observed what has been done before, if it worked, if it didn't work, why it worked, why didn't it. Can we improve on the thing that worked? Can we add to them and create a version 2.0, test it and see if it produces the desired results?
Like @Leomarquie said:
If we put in place the choices to be able to make changes if something doesn't work, then we open ourselves to bettering our live, and our government.
Why not crowd source this process? Why not put all of our heads together, leave the egos out the door, look at the empirical evidence and start the design process.
Right off the bat, I can tell you that the biggest issue with governments failing is that the populous usually doesn't participate directly in government affairs. The masses are usually convinced that they need elites of politicians to rule over them. Maybe that is a great place to start -- bridge the schism between the people and the government.
How would a scientific mind go about setting up this problem and designing a solution? That's what I would like for you guys to help me figure out.