@guzlomi this is very much what I was hoping for: input from someone with a background in law. Thank you so much for also explaining the reasoning behind your choices.

┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌█████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌██┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌┌┌┌██┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌┌┌┌┌┌████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌████████████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌████████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌█████████┌┌ ███┌┌┌┌█████████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌█████┌ ██┌┌┌███████┌████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌ ██┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌ ███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌█████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌ ┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌████████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌ ┌┌████████████┌┌┌████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌ ┌███┌██████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌ ┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌ ┌┌████┌████┌██████████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██┌ ┌┌┌████████████┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌ ┌┌┌┌██┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███████┌┌ ┌┌┌┌████┌┌┌┌┌┌████████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌████████┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌████████████┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌█┌█┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌███┌┌┌┌┌┌█████┌┌█████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██████████████████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌██████████████┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌ ┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌┌

Hey everyone, I have read the 'declaration of unity' and I like it for the most part, however - like most of the people with common sense are a bit squemish when it comes to notion '9' there will be no need for political parties. Direct democracy? Liquid Democracy? I am not quite sure how that would even work in the long run. I am entitled to my opinion but the fact that 'political parties' may not play a part in our democracy is somewhat concerning. Sounds like it is paving a way for an technocratic elitist 'democracy' more than anything. I am using the term Democracy, loosely here. North Korea for example tend to boast that they're democratic in their name but really they're not and they have only one candidate haha. You see where I am going with this? Still a bit of a dictatorship to me. Whilst the constitution is still being written, I do hope the need for political parties is just NOT an earthly thing, personally expect a lot of discontent amongst asgardians. Hardly trying to gather 'Unity' if you're going to restrict political parties in Asgardia. I would actively encourage all members of Asgardia to oppose this 9th notion or reword it because to me it appears to be quite vague

Thank you, regards Christopher J Boardman

@ChristopherBoardman

I think what guzlomi proposed (quoted below) is a very good way of going about the "no politics" issue with this declaration.

“Asgardia shall have a republican form of government (of the people, for the people and by the people), with some kind of direct democratic political system with >universal suffrage. Political parties will not be recognized by law.”

In this way, we avoid temptation of future monarchies or oligarchies, and also possible absolutist, authoritarian, communist or fascist regimes.

It doesn’t forbid “parties” but they will only be “civil associations” as any other, without any political power or participation in the political system, because there will be a >“direct democracy” of some kind (so without “political representatives”)

It makes a lot of sense to me: political parties are neither condemned nor condoned, so Asgardians' rights and freedoms of assembly are still intact.

@yovy & @guzlomi - statement 9

I think what you are saying is correct but not really something for this declaration

The political system eventually adopted by Asgardia, I guess, should be something similar to what you have attempted to describe. However that and it's workings need to be defined within the constitution and the articles of legislation.

I'm not really sure how to word what I THINK the writers were saying, however I don't think they were trying to define a political system in this declaration. I agree it comes across that way in the English however I doubt it is what they were trying to achieve at this level.

I do wish the powers that be would reply to this forum with some clarification of what the intent is for 9,11,12. That way we aren't offering suggestions without proper knowledge.
I feel that would make the conversation easier.

Acho que a declaração deixa bem explicito que sera uma nação livre que respeitará a liberdade de todos, e que não se envolverá em politica, a não ser que seja convidado em eventos mundiais. Mas me pergunto o por que não haverá lugar para história da Terra em Asgardia, se o planeta é um lugar tão rico e vasto de conhecimento e histórias? Acho essa parte podia ser argumentada melhor tambem. (12) E Alguem poderia me explicar melhor a sexta (06) emenda da declaração? Eu não compreendi direito.

"I think the statement makes it quite explicit that it is a matter of freedom that all the rights of all, and that is not to engage in politics, unless invited to world events. But I do not have a place for Earth history in Asgardia, is the planet such a rich and vast place of knowledge and stories? I think that part could be discussed better as well. (12) And could anyone explain me better the sixth (06) amendment of the statement? I do not get it right." Obs.: Translated into English with the Google translator.

I agree ,but some wording needs possibly changed such as sec2 bullet 2 Capital E for the word ensure ,You could leave out the word Planet everyone knows Earth is a planet and possibly after the word Earth it could read and of the entirety of Humankind from threats in space In Sec 4 Religion should be included In Sec 5 and inSec 6 States could be changed to nations Some countries may not like being called states and change the word country to nation in Sec 5 country sounds belittling Sec8 switch around Earth States and change it to the Nations of Earth sec 11 may need some more work their are alot of scientists doctors and such who have a belief of some sort and may not like it if they cant meet especially Muslims also the history of earth is and will be important to Asgardia even in space you learn from the past also like it or not political parties will form over or it just turns to anarchy just my thoughts

+1 @ guzlomi

I think guzlomi has just staked a claim as the Attorney General of Asgardia.

Nice work. I'd have to seriously question this whole process if the suggestions made are not considered..

Wow. Guzlomi's suggestion is one we should definitely keep in mind. I can find no flaws in his rewording suggestions. And they'd still be representative of the original, people's will.

If have some problems with point 9 of the declaration which I also see as a constitution. No politics? Does politics mean administration, doesn't it? You need to talk about what's the best way to do this or that. Does leadership mean politics, doesn't it? The missing of politics (To find the best way for the Community to participate in the decisions) leads to dictatorship! If we are truly free in mind there is a good chance that two people might have a different understanding of a fact. And then there is only the discussion (politics) the right way to solve this problem.

I like point 12 although I don't know if this Declaration of Unity is the right place for it. In my understanding this means we truly begin at the beginning with no burden of the past. What happened in the past on Earth does not radiate into the present and future of Asgardia. So we are not a legal successor of anybody, and there are accordingly no obligations that can be derived from the past.

Regards, Holger

Dear fellow Asgardians. On page 7 and 9 of this thread are two posts equating to many hours of work ... as my contribution. Please take into account. I see most posters are only reading what is most recent. Wishing you all a great day today! Peace.

Very well thought-out remarks to my previous post, ka.laszlo and bigred; I have edited the post to include them.

I absolutely love guzlomi's rewording! Amazing!

My only qualms are with point 11, which in my opinion is talking about too many different things:

"Asgardia encourages progressive scientific research, thinking and international co-operation. Asgardia will never have any official religion. According to the International Declaration of Human Rights, Asgardian citizens are free to practice religion, sexuality, lifestyles and other personal choices which do not interfere with, judge, harm or proselytize others and do not violate any human rights."

I think there are 2 main topics in it: "scientific research" and "freedom but not at the expense of others". I would split these into 2 separate points.

To FloydKelly, this forum thread is not "final"; in fact there is a call in this separate topic to compile our suggestions together.

I feel like a lot of people don't understand the part of leaving history and religion behind. The hierarchal economic and political structures do more harm than good for humanity. I think it is important to shed illusions we were all brought up with that encourage divisiveness and conflict.

@guzlomi - thanks for the plug - remember @yovy, @floydkelly & @zouzou have all put forward comprehensive thoughts as well and @victor fiallos first showed us we were missing neutrality instead of using reciprocity.

On the point of reciprocity and some of the other wording in the original document..... It might be interesting to remember that the originators of this document already work closely with unooma due to their "day jobs". The "principle of reciprocity" and many other forms of phrasing they used are all utilised in the current "UN space treaty" (not officially called that since 2002). So I think they were going for wording that would be familiar to them. Although, as I mentioned in my original post on this forum, I think a lot of the intent of the phrasing got lost in translation.

Perhaps that can help readers with divining the intent of the original document - which is what I feel we need to focus on.


Another area which has perhaps been misunderstood is the voting concerning this document.
From the material handed out by the current administration, I don't think we will be voting on the content of this declaration or the constitution.
It's my understanding at that time the documents will basically be presented as a "fait au compli".
We are being asked for our input here as feedback on the content of the document.

At voting day it is my understanding people will be:
- voting yes/no to their acceptance of this declaration as a statement of the guiding principles of, and their support for, the stated goals within their Asgardian lives.
- If a person accepts the declaration of unity then they move to the next stage which is voting yes/no on their acceptance of the constitution as influencing how they live their daily Asgardian life.
- If a person accepts the constitution then they have the opportunity to become a full Asgardian citizen with what ever basic and extended rights are allowed within the constitution of Asgardia.

Please see decree 3 and it's attached material. Also please study the manner in which the whole Asgardian scenario has been put together so far. It is an initiative of a small group who are eliciting people's feedback in order to create sensible guidelines. It is not some people asking us to allow or disallow their initiative or the guidelines they adopt for that initiative.

I guess it could be true that if only a few people agreed with the declaration and constitution it would all have to go back to the drawing board, however I don't think the voting day procedure is to pass or stop these documents, it is to agree or not agree to them on a persons way to becoming a full citizen of Asgardia.

@bigred

Perhaps that can help readers with divining the intent of the original document - which is what I feel we need to focus on.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you please elaborate?