By: guzlomi(Asgardian) on 13 April 2017, 9:51 a.m.
problem has been the lack of feedback so we didn't know what to expect: direct or representive democracy? Technocracy? Oligocracy? Plutocracy (only richs will have money to pay the ticket to go to space)? Autoritarian or military regime? A Republic or constitutional Principality (like Monaco or Liechtenstein)?
I think you forgot to mention: Corporatocracy. Which could be fitting if we were a bunch of business men wanting to control Space. Afterall, i imagine it easier to setup an enterprise in the business of mining asteroids or the Moon faster than setting up a stable nation.
Maybe we are too ambitious and we are designing a State that will not be able to exist (fully developed) in the next 100 or 200 years... The short term goal would be to have some satellites and a spacial station like MIR or ISS recognized as a sovereign "territory". For this level of management a full "State" is not truly neccesary, but an executive board and an "assembly of citizens" to keep it accountable. Like any enterprise. We can call them whatever we want, but it is the same.
Overly ambitious or just passionate about the cause? There is no doubt the founding fathers of the 13 colonies took the business of setting up the nation very seriously, if not ambitiously. I should hope to see all of us with such fervor.
Nowadays those would be the easier ways to manage this project. No need of many complicated provisions that only will be necessary when the State evolves to a bigger level. Until hundreds of people would be living in space or in a lunar colony, it will be unnecesary. When this time came, Constitution would be modified according to the needs and will of our descendants. No need to foresee all of this by now.
So maybe we should limit the Constitution to regulate the rights of citizens (reference to universal declaration of human rights), regulate an executive board or governent, an assembly or parliament of all the citizens (direct democracy) and a board of disputes or arbitration (court of justice). And also to regulate a modification mechanism. The rest (taxation, security, citizenship, civil rights, procedures, penal and civil code, etc) can be adopted and regulated by laws. Simplicity and avoid unreal containt should be our goal by now.
I am definitely in favor of limiting the declarations to that which limits the government and defines only the most absolute "universal rights" of its Citizenry. I agree that some of these ideas are not valuable until we have a significant concentration of Citizens in the same spatial location. The focus should be on government rights (aka limitations) rather than the entitlements of the Citizenry. In other words: Tell me what you are not supposed to do... Not what I can't do...
Until we see further developments, I find it hard to speculate further.