Apr 25, 17 / Gem 03, 01 05:27 UTC

Re: Discussion for the Constitution Table of Contents  

Me parece muito bom :)

Apr 25, 17 / Gem 03, 01 05:40 UTC

Hello @Willian Nascimento @Vion 

Just a reminder that English is the accepted language in all non-regional forums. If English is not your first language it is recommended to use Google Translate or Bing Translator so that you can post the english translation into your post. To find a forum in your language, you can visit our regional groups section where you can speak and find translated official Asgardian documents in your native tongue.
Let us know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Apr 25, 17 / Gem 03, 01 12:07 UTC

Dear all. I think it is  best to use a system of self-representation supported by technology and  to avoid possible technological fraud, the voting system should be  non-anonymous, that is, public.

The government  must be technocratic, based on parameters set by all the people and  should be of free removal, since they do not fulfill the objectives to  satisfaction.

The justice  system must be based on akasic records, or else, by advanced  technological means, based on the presumption of innocence until proven  guilty by means of habeas corpus.

In an economic system one should not use money, which is the source of all corruption, it must be based on privileges. All  basic needs must be met and other needs, such as education, must be  free, given their strategic importance for Asgardia and Humanity. The greater efforts and services to the community, must be rewarded with additional non-heritable privileges.

The punitive system must be based on temporary or definitive expulsion of Asgardia and compensation for the damages caused.

One of the most  important topics is the Ministry of Research and Development, which must  take the highest priority issues of Asgardia and through exchange with  other countries and civilizations, develop the most priority solutions  in education, technology, medicine, defense and military, etc.

Obviously, all this must be taken to the constitution.

Apr 26, 17 / Gem 04, 01 13:34 UTC

HOLA que tal Asgardianos, que tengan buen dia en el planeta tierra.

Apr 26, 17 / Gem 04, 01 13:36 UTC


I agree with the above comment, same opinions

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

Well seems interesting, though some things missing or overgeneralized, maybe some table contents names could be different too, but will have to wait for proper content to comment more precisely on this matter.

May 3, 17 / Gem 11, 01 14:12 UTC

I have a a big question here. 

Please forgive me if it has been answered elsewhere in this forum.

Specifically, I have a big question about the Unity Statement, particularly in point 9, which puts forward the idea of no political parties. This is because it seems to be in conflict with the Constitution's proposal in "Article 32: Parliament." 

For example, in the U.K.'s parliamentary system, there are over 10 political parties with seats in the House of Commons. There are 5 political parties sitting in Canada's parliament. There are 6 in Austria's parliament.

The point here, is that if Asgardia is to have a parliament, how does the current leadership propose to overcome the very idea of a parliament with no political parties?

  Updated  on May 3, 17 / Gem 11, 01 14:14 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

May 3, 17 / Gem 11, 01 16:16 UTC

The constitution table of contents seems fine to me for the moment, but I just wonder how ministers, ambassadors, etc. will be appointed, and I also wonder if there will be any kind of safeguards to protect Asgardians from any form of dictatorship. 

May 3, 17 / Gem 11, 01 16:20 UTC

The table of contents looks fine to me, yet I wonder if there will be anything as regards the appointment of ministers, diplomats, etc. and also a provision to avoid any kind of possible excess of power...

May 4, 17 / Gem 12, 01 23:06 UTC

God Bless Asgardia! :D

May 7, 17 / Gem 15, 01 20:12 UTC


Parliamentary systems exist on the manicipal level in Canada as well without political parties there is no contradiction there.  It merely means that the representatives will vote  their conscience on the individual issues and the votes will be tallied.

  Last edited by:  Meni Brooks-L'nug (Asgardian)  on May 7, 17 / Gem 15, 01 20:14 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: To specify who my reasons was to

May 8, 17 / Gem 16, 01 01:13 UTC

The Declaration of Unity and the Constitution table of contents have a bit of a conflict.

9. Asgardia does not engage in politics, there is no place for political parties in Asgardia. But every Asgardian can freely participate in political life on Earth.

The table of contents advises there will be a government (albeit the details have not been laid out) and of course a group of Asgardians will be required to make decisions in terms of law, ethics, philosophy, budget, etc.  The people that will discuss and make these decisions in formality will more or less be politicians.  We could re-brand them, remove the concept of political parties and move to a free council type regime as parties tend to lead to opinion bias on issues.  In the end though they would still be politicians.

For the first hundred years or so of Asgardia having influence over space we can expect there to be disagreement from nations on Earth - someone will need to engage with reasoned discussion with Earthly bodies in order to prevent conflicts escalating and transcending Earth anyway.  Would the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - and other ministry members - be classified as politicians?

Should we treat our "politicians" as analysts who's job is simply to dissect an issue, present the positive and negative to each issue with predicted cause and effect relationships in order to determine plausible choices alongside their ramifications?  If this were the case, a synopsis could be shared with the citizens to vote on the issue electronically.  We could leverage technology and create a government that makes decisions based on what the people think on individual issues - as opposed to voting in a generalized agenda, but then we would need to make sure the voters are properly educated on issues they vote on.

I think it's very important to fabricate a structure that allows high flexibility and efficiency during times of rapid technological advancement, but also pays strong mind to the ethics of its decisions for the good of the nation and humanity.  It might be time to start farming data on decisions made, and the opinions of Asgardian citizens (potentially non citizens as well) for the purposes of implementing artificial intelligence systems later down the track that would integrate with government decision making processes.

Is there a medium other than these forums where we can be more involved in this discussion?

May 12, 17 / Gem 20, 01 08:15 UTC

I'm not fluent in English but , charter Initially very successful

May 15, 17 / Gem 23, 01 23:25 UTC

Hi there, the constitution table of contents is awesome, but i wish to state some minor questions: as a space nation, and by the fact the space is almost infinite, we, the tip of the iceberg called humanity, how will handle the deep space exploration?, are we considering something like the right to carry weapons for self defense? what about space resources like water? gas? minerals?, what about free technology for every asgardian?  

Thank you.

May 26, 17 / Can 06, 01 08:12 UTC

What about science and innovation? How come these do not get their own chapters? Shouldn't there be a basis for a scientific strategy and methodology built in right into the constitution of Asgardia?

In Article 36, we can change "Decision-Making and Implementation" to "Decision-Making and Reimplementation" - this change would accent the transitive nature of science as a collective effort of understanding the Universe and would imply that governance is modeled by insight. (As any model, it's expected to be succeeded by a better one)

 In chapter V, I propose we add another entry "Innovation security" - this would cover Asgardian efforts to produce, disseminate and use scientific, methodologic and technological insight at a steady, sustainable and reliable pace. Understanding the pace of innovation is critical when exploring new basic research areas to invest into.

Also in chapter IV, I'd add "Meritocracy" - it's the paradigm we recognize in science, and as a scientific platform we will surely encounter problems where democratic and meritocratic principles clash. This should be mentioned in our Constitution. ( credit, where credit is due )