Apr 18, 17 / Tau 24, 01 09:42 UTC

Re: Designing an innovative form of government for Asgardians  

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

Apr 18, 17 / Tau 24, 01 11:41 UTC

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

FGP

Apr 19, 17 / Tau 25, 01 03:59 UTC

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.

Apr 19, 17 / Tau 25, 01 05:03 UTC

@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?

Apr 19, 17 / Tau 25, 01 13:14 UTC

Instead of acting with papers and money we could give points like in school.
If someone is doing a good job and has enough points then he may, if he/she
wants it, continue with the job. If the points are below a minimum then someone
else can be chosen. If the points are not high enough then there can be added
one or more assistants who could take over the job at a later time if they have
enough knowledge and want it or are chosen.

Just some fast thinking.

Grtz, Dirk.

Apr 19, 17 / Tau 25, 01 21:21 UTC

@Dirk Baeyens so your idea is to not have money per se, but instead have credits?  Do I understand that right?

Apr 20, 17 / Tau 26, 01 01:04 UTC

Designing new kinds of government will waste lot of resources and time, also since we can't borrow experience from past government of other country. When the system goes wrong, we don't know how to fix it. We can only try some policy which we have no idea will it works, which is not a good way for nation to work. 

Although I do agree using existing structure and add some innovation on it, it will create a unique government and we have past experience to rely on.

Apr 20, 17 / Tau 26, 01 02:22 UTC

@ Kennetchau

Where do you get the idea that you cannot borrow from past governments?

And the only resources it will "waste" are the cognitive resources that reside in your head.  That's what planning is all about.  You create mental models of the situation before you invest actual physical resources is the real product.

  Last edited by:  Yoevelyn Rodriguez (Asgardian, Comm Assistant)  on Apr 20, 17 / Tau 26, 01 02:23 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Model explanation

Apr 20, 17 / Tau 26, 01 02:38 UTC

@ Yovy

Maybe I didn't read the post right. From what I read, this post is suggesting to have a totally brand new form of government, a brand new form of government means it does not base on any existing form of government right? If it's not base on any existing government, there will be problems that didn't happen before. How can you borrow experience from something that never occur.

Also, not just cognitive resources will be waste. Resource will be wasted to find a new solution for a new problem, if the solution did not work. We need to use more resource to find another solution. You have argue that planning and creating models will help dealing with the problem. That's not true, even if you develop tons of model there'll still be situation that you can't cover. For example, Marz communism. A ideal society that everyone share the same portion of resources, work the same amount of time. Receive same amount of education. If the leaders didn't do their job, the people could vote them down. But at the end what history tell us. People will be lazy and not willing to do their work and the leaders turns to dictatorship. What I'm trying to say here is that you could never model every situation, developing a new kinds of government is not worth it and face a lot of different kinds of obstacles. Yeah sure, given time we can get through it but why are we dragging ourselves down the rabbit hole if we have something that's working that we can use it as a blueprint. We could have former experience that we can used to prevent mistakes, and the probability that we will get situation that we've not seen is lower. Why waste time building an entire new model, an entire new system? it's not like its not working

But if I read this wrong, what you mean by designing an innovative form of government is based on existing system. I apologize, otherwise I really don't see the point of creating a new system which full of uncertainties.

  Last edited by:  kenneth Chau (Asgardian)  on Apr 20, 17 / Tau 26, 01 02:39 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 20, 17 / Tau 26, 01 02:54 UTC

Maybe I didn't read the post right. From what I read, this post is suggesting to have a totally brand new form of government, a brand new form of government means it does not base on any existing form of government right?

No.  You most definitely read wrong.  The idea is to study what has worked before and why and then to study what hasn't worked and why.  I shouldn't have to say it, but it implies that you have to look at forms of governments already in existence or that have existed and, from the information you gather, start a design process of something new that will integrate the things that worked in the past, like direct democracy for example, and replace the things that didn't work in the past, like giving government responsibility to citizens -- like @bigred explained.

This is how Elon Musk has been able to redesign the space industry singlehandedly.  He didn't invent new physics, he merely looked at what works already and what doesn't work and said, "well, let's change that bit with something that will do what I want and let's see how it goes."

That's what planning means.  You plan on paper first.  Just like when you plan your groceries you write them down to know how much they are going to cost.  You have a plan of what you are going to buy, but you haven't spent any money yet because you haven't actually bought the groceries.  All you have are ideas on paper.  And since you are a good planner, you know very well what your basket of groceries will look like when you come home.  

If you don't find what you are looking for, you either replace it for a suitable substitute or you don't substitute it at all and just wait a bit longer until you can fulfill your planned grocery list.



Apr 20, 17 / Tau 26, 01 08:18 UTC

Firstly, remember we are not talking about a huge country of millions with an already entrenched way of thinking. We are talking about a very small group of people who are bound by a common goal and are in common hostile political and environmental situations.  These people would already be striving for something new and would be more willing to accept something that directly involved them.

@yovy - OK, so instead of "positions of power" we have "positions of responsibility," right?

that is the basic idea.

In all current political systems people lobby for popularity based on various factors. People with bigger finances can also lobby for privilege due to financial status.  This causes a temptation for corruption and usurpation of the role itself and the process for getting into the position.  I proposed that we find a way to put the focus on the job that needs to be done and remove these temptations in some manner.


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?

Let's face it, most people want to be president so they can rule others. Not so they can enact things that the citizens of that country want.  The democratic representation system is extremely non-representative of the populace because it is a race for power and privilege that can be manipulated by the already powerful and those with money. Very rarely does the populace get any say and even when they do it is limited in value and scope.  I am not just talking about what people love to term democracy in this statement. The Chinese communist system also has representative elections. The elections are limited to party members (not just officials - members), however the policy is that the representative must actually represent the peoples of the region they are elected by the party to represent. Of course that rarely works either.

If the focus is on simply having a responsibility to continue jobs, projects, reporting etc that are necessary to keep the nation afloat and no preference is given to who is doing those jobs, then the privileges and power we currently associate with those jobs disappear. No matter how many platitudes or hands on heart and tears come out of politicians, this attitude of service cannot be present in the race for popularity, privilege and power that is the legacy of our current political systems. Perhaps people wouldn't want to do those jobs if no power was associated with the position. However those jobs need to be done or the society will disappear.

I also think some form of direct democracy for decisions that affect the nations direction, status, infrastructure , finances etc should be instigated. This means that the populace is directly involved in the daily direction of their lives. This builds the feeling of participation and involvement and control over one's destiny is a powerful motivator towards bettering whatever a person is involved in.


@Kennetchau - which uncertainties of the current systems are you willing to accept or change?

Besides the obvious that @yovy pointed out, why are you of the opinion that trying something new in a small controlled environment is a waste of time.  I may misunderstand you, however there is nothing to say that in a new situation you can't utilise the things that work in any other situation. So far our political history has not been so good and the current systems are definitely not working in their current forms. So why not indulge our thought processes and find something interesting and new :-)


@DirkBaeyens - I agree why not try something which is a motivator which does not build divisions in society such as finances seems to.

Why not actually believe and put in place that the state can provide all essentials equally to everyone because the people are the state and they produced it together. That's a bit of socialist dogma that could possibly work in an environment that was an enclosed system, as any space habitation would be. It would only be effective if there actually were no privileges based on political, financial or any other divisions.  This would not of course work in the current situation for Asgardia (all citizens spread all over the earth in differing political and financial situations), however in some space habitation environment the state has to own the living environment anyway. So why not try.

That cannot of course preclude people working hard at whatever they want to gain financial success. That is the fine line that has to be walked in the scenario you suggest. Usually when trying to implement this scenario, people tend to go to the extremes of either socialism or the crazy non-representative politics we see in what is called democracy today.

Apr 20, 17 / Tau 26, 01 14:47 UTC

If you see all people in one settlement or one spaceship as one family or unit,
why would you try to gain a few dollars/credits/points/eggs more as an other
member as in the end all the dollars/credits/points/eggs are spend together.

Grtz, Dirk.

Apr 20, 17 / Tau 26, 01 20:16 UTC

@dirkbaeyens - I understand the intent and the wealth of meaning behind your words however there are practicalities dictated by our, sometimes, unfortunate human nature.

For instance people seem to be generally motivated by the opportunity to better their circumstances. This in itself is not a bad thing however, when left unchecked stepping on others to better ourselves seems to over-rule the idea of helping others to also better themselves. For some reason we forget that if a whole society is lifted together then our situation also becomes better.

So while I agree with the ideal of your idea, we need to find a way to implement that idea in a manner that keeps the "dark side" at bay, without removing the motivation to continue to better the societal situation.

I think your point about living in a small, possibly enclosed system is probably the key to any new forms of structure working.  Here on earth there are too many  entrenched problems with current societal structures and too many people are convinced, with blind faith, they can just tweak those structures and all will be well in the world. However in a group possibly living in an enclosed environment outside of earth, the hostile environmental situation will dictate that the attitude be one of co-operation for survival. And as I mentioned previously the organisation/nation/state would have to own any constructed environment anyway so personal real estate and many other personally gratifying concepts become nonsensical terms. Ability to work together to survive becomes the driving motivator. From that perspective yes, you are correct, it would be ridiculous to strive to get more "brownie points" of anything (including money) to use as some lever up to the "heights of power".

Apr 20, 17 / Tau 26, 01 20:40 UTC

What i found a great sentence in the film oblivion was:
Are you a good team? Yes we are a good team.

It is with that spirit that you have to start, team-work.
If every member does 100% his job then you have
automatically the best team you could wish for.

Of course there is also the free time, what you do as an
individual in your free time is totally up to yourself. If you
want to do a second job or do some extra courses then
that will give at least more respect from the others and
maybe some bonus from the highest-ranked/wisest/whatever.

Grtz, Dirk.

Apr 24, 17 / Gem 02, 01 05:25 UTC

@Dirk - so given your approach of an ideal team environment what do you think of a system where everyone has opportunity to participate in all aspects of the essential jobs for the society (regardless of government position or janitor) and everyone is given a chance to do those jobs by some random selection instead of political lobbying for popularity.  Possibly each position could be for a fixed period (obviously the period would have to depend on the position - 4 years as a janitor is not the same as 4 years as an orbital physicist, and would impeded the growth of individuals who had the physics skills, thus reducing the efficacy of the society) Granted everyone must be encouraged to build their own life and "career" and free time.

Bear in mind that regardless of Asgardia being as it is now (a group of people spread across the globe in differing political situations), where it could be in a year or two (a nation without territory and citizens spread across the globe living in differing political situations), where it could be in 10-20 years (a nation with an habitable platform in space with a few people living on that - perhaps the governing body and the rest in the previous situation) or where it could be in 100 years (a fully functioning society in space), The society will be markedly different to life as we know it on earth now.  The state must by any stretch of the imagination pay for, construct, launch and own the political and physical platforms of that society.