I'm not sure as to where would be the best place to post this.  So, mods, I hope you can enlighten me as far as that goes.

The Asgardia Project promises to democratize space for all human beings.  This is an ambitious project never done before.  With this spirit of innovation and inclusivity, do you think it is a good idea to develop a new form of government (as opposed to just copying current governments on Earth) that will truly make Asgardians responsible for their self-determination and give them the freedom to be governed as they really feel it’s just?

There is no perfect government because government is only a set of structures, rules, and procedures. 

Most governments (even dictatorships) would work highly effectively if not for the selfish, greedy, self-centered, egotistical people they have running them.

CVO

"Most governments (even dictatorships) would work highly effectively if not for the selfish, greedy, self-centered, egotistical people they have running them."  

Well, what if we can come up with a form of government that could eliminate that?  

Wow, this can spark it's own 1,000 page argument..lol.. 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. 

We're a new nation, and we're only beginning. 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. We're already starting a new adventure, and it's already a change from our earthly choices. We can't be scared of change, or adaptation.

> > "Most governments (even dictatorships) would work highly effectively if not for the selfish, greedy, self-centered, egotistical people they have running them."  

> Well, what if we can come up with a form of government that could eliminate that?  

Oh, yes, please do. (this is not sarcasm)

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. Those who have will want to keep it, and those who have not will want to obtain it. Thus, conflict will arise and, through it, a desire by those to whom fate has determined shall have to retain what they have and make policies, procedures, and governments to maintain the status quo. Those who have no will want to change the status quo, tear down those same policies, procedures, and governments in an effort to gain that which they do not possess. It is through this that we will have constant conflict in our lives... until we bring balance to all parts of our lives.

HKN

@Leomarquie

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?

@Phicksur

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.

@Dirk Baeyens

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.

I think an crowd sourcing of government would be very interesting. Take the scientific process to it...form a hypothesis...make the plan...test and prove! Now, I would love to sit in and have my 10' white-board to draw possible solutions with. 

In the meantime, we'll see where the current model starts to go.

test and prove ...record...track & analysis...modify...loop...  like scientific process! thumb up

@ Dirk Baeyens 

Not a "scientific government" but a government designed with scientific principles of observing what works and discarding what doesn't.  

Sometimes logic is wrong.

I do not believe any government should be centered around a single principle. It makes it too dependent, and too vulnerable. A government should have a handful of principles, like Science, Law (which is just history of actions), Religion (yes, faith and spirit are important factors), Economics, and Defense/Military. If three of these five groups actually agree on something, it is more likely to be correct than if just one believes it is correct.

TNO

Please, stop confusing a method with a philosophy.  And also, please stop being so reductionist.  The scientific method allowed us to create the civilization we live in with all its technologies and advanced concepts.  I don't see it as a limiting principle but as a freeing agent.  A "logic government" is not what is meant either.

The point is to gather evidence as to what has worked and what hasn't.  Figure out why it worked and why it didn't, and start a design process that could lead to an adequate solution that can be self-purging as far as corruption is concerned.  

The problem is that, in order to get there, people actually have to stop being so comfortable and use their brains to think.  I find that getting people to stop being so intellectually lazy is the biggest barrier to moving toward a workable solution since thinking, actually thinking -- not just regurgitating platitudes -- is quite taxing.

thanks bros, u already did by sharing knowledge & ideas.   

i entered this post by clicking unread thread randomly, (wonder that's why they don't supply search, u have to sort through pages clicking titles look more interesting than others on same page, then they know which words get more attention, joking ^_^ ). always not into this kinda things, but the links in your reply make me think different, realizing i have prejudge on sth i don't even have the entry-level knowledge of it. u init learn-understand-support-spread fission

I do not understand your criticisms. As a result, I will bow out.

FGP

I am pretty sure what @yovi is getting at is a pretty basic premise:

If we are starting a new situation which (to our knowledge) has not been tried before, then why not look for some form of organisational structure which does not have the same problems inherent in the current earthly political systems.  His choice of words might be somewhat misleading however I'm pretty sure he means that we should ensure we apply some scientific methodologies to coming up with a system. In order to weed out the parts of the system that might lead to difficulties we should look at whether or not the item has been tried before. If so then did it work and if not, why not. Further if an idea hasn't been tried before then what could be it's downfalls and how to overcome these.

On the surface of it I think it is a good idea, even if it's only for a thought experiment. My reasons for saying this are:

(a) Asgardia is a totally new project which is trying to create a workable social system which does not bring the old baggage along with it 

(b) the founder has stated categorically that there is no place for a repeat of our earthly human history and mistakes 

(c) the founder has also stated that Asgardia is no place for the disastrous inherent problems that come with popularity votes or economic and political lobbying as seen in all of our current political systems

(d) Asgardia will be a nation without territory. Whether it is the current situation of all citizens being in differing physical political situations (which will be for the foreseeable future) of whether Asgardia has some constructed environment in space, it will not be "life as usual". Life for Asgardians will be markedly different to their current lives. The politically and environmentally hostile situation which we are about to enter demands a totally new way of structuring and administering the society.

So this thread is probably a good thought process in thinking about new ideas that may or may not help in the effort to shape a new type of society.  I don't for one minute think anything we say here is gospel to be picked up by the current admin team. However it probably is a good method of creating a new thought process that might be beneficial to others in this effort for a new society.

In the "constitution contents" and "declaration of unity" forums I've spoken about the political problems facing a lot of the people who already consider themselves Asgardian, at the point it becomes a possibility that Asgardia will gain recognition of statehood. I've also highlighted the environmental problems that dictate the need for everyone to be essential persons.  I won't belabour those points again unless someone wants to hear.  @yovi has stated that a lot of us are lazy in our thinking and I think he is referring mainly to what we term the "silent masses" who are often manipulated into following ideas.  So maybe we should look instead at what motivates people to be involved and take an active part in the society and/or administration structure.

Personally I feel people are motivated by recognition and easy opportunities to participate.  I fell people are demotivated by seeing that they can have no involvement or that their involvement amounts to nothing.  When people are in that position they feel a sense of "just leave me alone to do my own thing".  That seems to be when they are most easily manipulated politically (for any number of reasons).

So I think the way to create something new is see how we get people involved in it in a manner that their participation and effort actually achieves something and doesn't leave them feeling "it doesn't matter what i do the blokes above me will do what they want anyway"?

I think the first thing is to NOT have positions of power. The position of any responsibility within the society must be a position that someone was selected for in order to simply enact decisions or complete projects already decided by the entirety of the citizen population.

Second I think that positions must be selected at random from the entire citizen population.

Thirdly I think that any position should be for a fixed period of time and that a person who has been selected for that position cannot be selected to that position again until everyone else has had a go at it.

Just utilising these 3 ideas will stop (a) political lobbying (b) financial advantage (d) technical or social advantage (c) career politicians who gain power and privilege over others.

It also means that the emphasis is on the job that needs to be done in support of the society rather than on on any idea of "how I can run this society to get my way" or any other variant of that idea.  Further, it allows that everybody has equal opportunity to participate in the structure of the society in a meaningful way. No one can take advantage of that because they don't know (a) when they will be chosen (b) who will be chosen next. It removes the temptation to harm or disadvantage others because that person might just do the same to you when they are elected tomorrow.

I'd be interested in impressions of these thoughts.

@Dirk Baeyens

Is there something we can do better at this point or
what are the things that have not worked so far.

To date, this is the best post I've read on the subject.  Dirk, this is exactly where you start.  You question what has worked and what hasn't.  So far we know there are certain forms of government that definitely oppress and marginalize masses, example: monarchies. Fascism and communism have been a disaster historically.  There are certain things that we can discard right away.

Other things, like some form of democracy and republicanism, seem to work better.  It seems that the best governments in the world at the moment are those governments in nordic countries (yes, I know what you are going to say, and no, I don't think they work because of their monarchies.  I think they work because of the democratic process they have been forced to adopt in order to avoid extinction). There are also other forms of government that have worked but were phased out for some reason -- those can be explored.

Ultimately, the main issue here is that the failing of governments can be narrowed down to one issue, corruption.  We know this is really the problem, but I don't think the reason why this even happens in the first place is understood by the masses.  The reason why it happens is because people let it happen.  So asking these questions is the right approach, Dirk.  

@JoeT0011 yes, it is difficult to navigate the forums.  I just click on unread threads and that's how I find the active topics.  I think they are working on fixing that soon.

@Phicksur  

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound too preachy.  I supposed that those with the inclination will be the ones to step forward.  I did enjoy your input, you are always a very insightful individual.

@bigred

OK.  I need to distil your ideas.  I apologize before hand if I come across a bit aggressive, I do have a somewhat confrontational style (I am working on moderating myself, so please, forgive me).

We have had many conversations before, bigred, so I am somewhat familiar with your thinking style.  Allow me to be devil's advocate for a second here: 

I think the first thing is to NOT have positions of power. The position of any responsibility within the society must be a position that someone was selected for in order to simply enact decisions or complete projects already decided by the entirety of the citizen population.

OK, so instead of "positions of power" we have "positions of responsibility," right? You say that "Second I think that positions must be selected at random from the entire citizen population."

Why is this a better solution than actually selecting representatives democratically and having a body of people to govern for us?

Again, I'm sorry if I sound confrontational.  I'm trying to understand your thought process here.  Why are you making the choices you are making?