With your understanding of the innovative ideas that make up Asgardia’s philosophy, do you agree that Asgardians should design a new form of government and not just copy the government structures in place on Earth?

Total number of votes: 25

84% Yes, we should develop our very own form of government from the ground up.

16% No, let's just copy what others have tried on Earth.

Apr 14, 17 / Tau 20, 01 00:53 UTC

Designing an innovative form of government for Asgardians  

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?


  Last edited by:  Yoevelyn Rodriguez (Asgardian, Comm Assistant)  on Apr 14, 17 / Tau 20, 01 00:54 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Typo

Apr 14, 17 / Tau 20, 01 13:15 UTC

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

Apr 14, 17 / Tau 20, 01 17:27 UTC

"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?  

Apr 14, 17 / Tau 20, 01 18:35 UTC

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.

Apr 14, 17 / Tau 20, 01 18:44 UTC

We could do a poll and ask people for what ministry they want to do something.
From that point we could start with a few ministries with the most people.
Then maybe make combinations between them and see what is most successful.
After that we can make other combinations with the rest of the ministries.

Just thinking in the wild.

Grtz, Dirk.

Apr 14, 17 / Tau 20, 01 19:03 UTC

> > "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

Apr 14, 17 / Tau 20, 01 23:19 UTC

@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.


Apr 15, 17 / Tau 21, 01 04:45 UTC

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.

Apr 15, 17 / Tau 21, 01 05:07 UTC

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


Apr 15, 17 / Tau 21, 01 08:22 UTC

A scientific government.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientocracy>

  Last edited by:  Dirk Baeyens (Asgardian)  on Apr 15, 17 / Tau 21, 01 08:28 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Apr 17, 17 / Tau 23, 01 00:38 UTC

@ Dirk Baeyens 

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

Apr 17, 17 / Tau 23, 01 12:43 UTC

A logic government.

Apr 17, 17 / Tau 23, 01 13:17 UTC

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

Apr 18, 17 / Tau 24, 01 02:39 UTC

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.


 




Apr 18, 17 / Tau 24, 01 08:10 UTC

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

Grtz, Dirk.