Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 13:04 UTC

Re: Discussion of the Declaration of Unity  

very well written declaration. I hope you understand and agree to the 1111 universal law as well.

http://drboylan.com/11.11laws.html

The 11:11 Universal and Spiritual Laws/Principles of the Cosmos

Universal Law of Free Will

Spiritual Law of Freedom of Man

Universal Law of Change

Spiritual Law of Growth of Man

Universal Law of Movement and Balance

Spiritual Law of Strength, Health and Happiness

Universal Law of Innocence, Truth and Family

Spiritual Law of Protection of Family

Universal Law of Symmetry

Spiritual Law of Equality

Universal Law of Life

Spiritual Law of Choice

Universal Law of Light, Sound and Vibration

Spiritual Law of Intuition

Universal Law of Judgment

Spiritual Law of Karma

Universal Law of Nature

Spiritual Law of Protection of Man

Universal Law of Love

Spiritual Law of Healing

Universal Law of Perception

Spiritual Law of Future Sight

Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 13:05 UTC

very well written declaration. I hope you understand and agree to the 1111 universal law as well.

http://drboylan.com/11.11laws.html

The 11:11 Universal and Spiritual Laws/Principles of the Cosmos

Universal Law of Free Will

Spiritual Law of Freedom of Man

Universal Law of Change

Spiritual Law of Growth of Man

Universal Law of Movement and Balance

Spiritual Law of Strength, Health and Happiness

Universal Law of Innocence, Truth and Family

Spiritual Law of Protection of Family

Universal Law of Symmetry

Spiritual Law of Equality

Universal Law of Life

Spiritual Law of Choice

Universal Law of Light, Sound and Vibration

Spiritual Law of Intuition

Universal Law of Judgment

Spiritual Law of Karma

Universal Law of Nature

Spiritual Law of Protection of Man

Universal Law of Love

Spiritual Law of Healing

Universal Law of Perception

Spiritual Law of Future Sight

Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 13:06 UTC

Very well done. Perfect, @guzlomi.

Where do I sign?

Thank you.

Best Regards,

Leonardo.

Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 13:32 UTC

Law has always been a tool of rulers and politicians please check out the protocols of the learned elders of Zion. The term "authority" is backed by force of overule the others and not peace of mutual unity.

Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 15:10 UTC

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

Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 15:15 UTC

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.

Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 18:56 UTC

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.

Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 19:57 UTC

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.

Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 20:08 UTC

Fellow Asgardians,

Thank you for your benevolent words about my post. :)

Yes, it took me a few hours to read all, think about our needs and reword it. But it gave my some satisfaction. The positive credit goes also to @bigred. I took and reword some of their fantastic ideas and suggestions.

Regarding the contain, number of points or if some parts are repetitive or even a "constitutional" matter, please consider that this was not my text nor my choice, nor the way I would have done it... I only tried to keep faithful to the contain of the original document and tried to improve it without many radical changes.

Yes, there're a few matters that are more "constitutional" than literary or big principles, but I think that to introduce some principles about the nation political system (that will be developed in a future Constitution), political relationship with other nations, dual citizenship or human rights is also interesting to do it, as long as they will legally bind the "Constitutional Fathers" at the time that they will prepare the draft Constitution (for example, they will not be able -if they would be tempted- to introduce a text with a monarchy or a dictatorship, nor include an official religion).

The principles included about Asgardia being subject to "ius gentium" (international law) and International Declaration of Human Rights will protect the main rights of all Asgardians since the first minute, without any need to subscribe any international treaty nor to wait for any diplomatic recognition. We will have a whole legal corpus and a Rule of Law system since the beginning -together with the future Constitution-. Nice, isn't it?

It would be interesting that the people that wrote the original text could give us their opinion, thoughts and feedback. Also it would be nice to know if they accept some proposal of innovations or if we must respect each and all the "matters" suggested in those points.

There are many declarations of independence and Constitutions along History to seek and take some good ideas about principles, main matters and rewording.

I will follow your next posts with interest to get more ideas to improve this text. After all, this declaration will be a collective work of all Asgardians and it will be voted! Many people shall have to be comfortable with it!

Regards

Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 22:57 UTC

@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.

Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 23:18 UTC

@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?

Tau 06, 01 / Mar 31, 17 01:34 UTC

@yovy

The wording of the original document is awkward and makes it difficult to work out what intent/meaning the writers were looking for.
As would be expected, people read it and take it on face value. Some of the phrasing is specific (such as "the principle of reciprocity") and the origins of those phrasings might be missed by the casual reader, leading to misunderstanding and/or restatement of previously posted thoughts.

I found it helpful in reading the original declaration to realise that a lot of that specific phrasing can be found in the documents that the writers would be familiar with from their day to day work. Even though the English is not structured very well, knowledge of those documents might help make the intent/meaning of the original document a little clearer, which it is not at the moment.



by the way and off topic - I think you got the best of his work in HEX. well done :-D

Tau 06, 01 / Mar 31, 17 01:48 UTC

When you say that Earth history has no place here, that doesn't mean that Earth history won't be taught in Asgardia, correct?

Tau 06, 01 / Mar 31, 17 05:00 UTC

@AlexTheViolinist, I believe they mean to say that the history of the Earth shall not have any influence on the life within Asgardia, i.e. a Russian on Earth would not have any issues with an American, or a person from Pakistan wouldn't have any issues with a person from India; and so on & so forth.

Tau 06, 01 / Mar 31, 17 08:24 UTC

Hello fellow Asgardians,

I think some Decree items has to be clarified. For example, I don't understand what is exactly meant by no. 12 (and I see I'm not alone). Does it mean that we should forget division and conflict from the past and turn ourselves to the future, or it means that we should forget the whole Earth history (I believe it is not the case)? There is too much space for various interpretations.

Regarding no. 9. It is whether naive or wrong formulated. The first part, we are already deep in politics. This forum is all about politics. Where is a community there is politics, where is more human brains there is politics - that's reality, we can't avoid it. And consequently, I think it is not the good idea to forbid political parties (which represent different opinions and attitudes toward various topics). I don't see any sense in elections if we can't elect between something. Or we should change vocabulary, therefore, there would not be elections, but only confirmations.(?)

Please clarify what is meant by those problematic items and then, when the meaning will be clear, then we will talk about whether the items are good or bad. Thank you.

  Last edited by:  Josip Pavic (Translator, Asgardian)  on Tau 06, 01 / Mar 31, 17 08:25 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: grammar