Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 07:44 UTC

Re: Discussion of the Declaration of Unity  

@LoreZyra - thanks for posting the links

I have read the google document, and I think you guys have done a good job of putting together the core of everyone's suggestions.

I think this might be difficult to do, however I think it might be relevant to put in some of the expanded explanations as to why people suggested some things. 

Example: it is sometimes hard to get @guzlomi meaning because he/she has a good grasp of legalese and uses it, plus English is not her/his first language. So some of us miss the point and have to ask her/him to explain. The explanations are excellent and critical to why the suggestion was penned in that manner (especially the legal terminology).

I also think that a lot of the statements on points 9 and 11 are due to misunderstanding the intent of the original due to translation difficulties.  I can be pretty sure the good doctor does not mean to do away with political structure (considering the table of contents he published for the constitution).  I can be equally as sure that he, being a survivor of some of the more dreadful events of our past century, is not intent on preaching disposal of our human history.  Indeed his job and the people he deals with on a day to day basis (which gives him the knowledge, political understanding, ability and opportunity to undertake this statehood project) would decree that he must be involved in politics and history.

So I think it might shine an incorrect light on the suggestions if you place those misunderstandings as a final statement in section 9 and 11 of your document.  

Perhaps it might help to say something like "...the English wording and phrasing of the original document caused some people to think it meant there would be no political structure, rights or process in line with a democracy. Their feeling on this is that political parties or at least democratic checks and balances in line with allowing opposition and free speech against the government was necessary."  

and " ... the English wording and phrasing of the original document caused some people to think it meant that the history of Earth would be subjugated in some manner and that it may turn out to be illegal to teach it.  Their feeling on this matter is that history cannot be forgotten and that we need to learn from history and teach new generations to avoid those pitfalls by looking to create new paradigms that don't reflect the problems of the past history."

I think this is a less reactionary statement and allows for a less "reactionary" reaction (...??? weird wording :-D ) based on the thought "these people just don't understand so their suggestions are not useful", to the suggestions we have put forward.  After all the current administration are human as well and will react much the same to a poorly worded document as people did on reading the poorly worded original.

It might also be nicer to leave out the bit about punishment as a lot of the people who submitted do not have English as their first language and so are at a bit of a disadvantage in that respect :-D

what do you think?

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 08:16 UTC

Good Morning (here in Barcelona).. with all my respects I think that is something must be expained or clarified, it must be done. This is a proposal of Declaration... then I suppose there will be another, that could be shared again and clarify this points. As in any constituent  process, there is debate ... only we are scattered, therefore, a first  sketch has been made ... people have opined. Let's make a second with the suggestions and there would be too much clarification of each statement, why, with examples. If I can explain my case ... to me when I read the point of the story .... I did not like anything. Then  I have matured the idea ... and yes, history is taught according to the  country where you are, and the vision of the victor is not the same as  the loser ... difficult to make a story that appeals to all ...

In fact, even though I  like history, ancient history, archeology ... history can divide,  confront ... and I have clear the example of "the discovery" of America  and what it has meant for cultures Indigenous peoples.

We may have among us historians from various cultures who can make a general history of humanity, and leave the peculiarities to the respective countries. From then on, it will be Our History. Greetings Asgardian.

On the other hand, the official Facebook pages are public ... so it may be that people are saying that is not Asgardian. It is not my mood to discriminate, but I would suggest that those who have made a comment  there put it on the forum that is where it corresponds and you are verified.

  Last edited by:  Susana Iris Buono Soiza (Asgardian, Candidate)  on Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 08:21 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 08:30 UTC


I'm not 100% sure what you are saying in your last post. Is it a response to my last post or is it a point about statement 11 in the "declaration of unity"?

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 10:51 UTC

Why I can't see the constitution of Asgardia? it says something went wrong

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 11:54 UTC


Please see the Constitution thread in the forum. This thread is dedicated to the Declaration of Unity document.

Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 13:30 UTC

@bigred With all my respect, what I have said five post before, is just my personal opinion, is not an answer to any particular comment. Just a personal reflection and suggestion:

  Last edited by:  Susana Iris Buono Soiza (Asgardian, Candidate)  on Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 18:02 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 00:58 UTC


I share your sentiment on how some intent may have been lost in translation. Thanks for your comment! I've added it to Point 9 in the document.

Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 04:29 UTC

I'm agree. I' ts the first space nation and the leader is the leader. He know the true.

Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 07:42 UTC

With all respect, I have written my own version of the Declaration of Unity. I hope it is more sound in articulating our issues with international space law, our ideals and rights on how to ensure equal access, establish our goals. 

I think that much of the currant "Declaration of Unity" is a combination of letter of intent and List of Rights. I think that much of it can and should be listed in the Constitution under the Chapter of Rights. 

Please critique my work fairly and honestly.

"The unanimous declaration of the people of Citizens of Earth, 


When human ambitions, foresight, law, and political agendas prevent human progress it becomes necessary for one group of people to endeavor on their own project of unification, to assume among the powers of the universe, and the separate and equal status by which Laws of Nature and Right by Life afford all living things, the establishment of a their own nation.


We the Citizens of Earth understand and agree these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are  born equal, that they are endowed by their existence with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Peace,–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among man, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive or an obstacle to these ends, it is the obligation of the People to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience have shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 


Many problems relating to space law are unresolved and may never be solved in the complex and contradictory political processes of modern international law. Geopolitical squabbles have great influence, and are often rooted in old military history of unresolvable conflicts between Earthly states and countries. 


We Citizens of Earth understand it is time to create a new judicial reality in space to ensure humanities peace and survival in space, the protection of Earth and the entire humankind from Extraterrestrial Threats, and to ensure equal opportunities in space for all Citizens of Earth regardless of any and all limitations of their earthly citizenship.


Therefore, we, the free people of Asgardia, the first Space Nation, based on the birthright of Humanity in the universe, a free and unified space state, appealing to the Nations of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, in the Name, and by Authority of the Citizens of Asgardia, solemnly publish and declare, That Asgardia is, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent Nation, recognized by the United Nations; that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Nation may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on our collective unity, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our sacred Honor, and here by adopt this 

 Declaration of Unity. "

The under signers shall be Asgardia Head of Nation and the 12 elected Ministers of Asgardia



Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 12:28 UTC


I have a few criticisms about your complete rewrite.

  1.  "Citizens of Earth" Earth, our planet on the whole, is not recognized as a State nor government.
  2. Why "pursuit of Peace"? While I agree that peace can never be guaranteed, it seems like we will forever be at war. I much prefer the pursuit of Happiness or Scientific advancement.
  3. "mankind are more disposed to suffer..." Really? Historically, it has been for resource gains that we have fought. If you visit a wealthy region, you will likely find less theft. Whereas in poor regions, a large number of "petty crimes" can be seen in broad daylight.
  4. Can you define "evils are sufferable" ? The word evil has a lot of religious connotations and even varies by each person as to what evil is... I, personally, object to this wording as I strongly want a our legal text to be neutral, if not divorced, from using any religious words. The words "religious" and "religion" are inherently neutral for as long as it suggests no doctrine.
  5. Why must we be shackled to our origins for eons to come for "the protection of Earth"? Certainly, we can provide such security if the United Nations agree. However, I disagree that it must be declared here. This is something we can cover in the proposed Constitution under Chapter Five.
  6. While it's fine to offer opportunities to "all Citizens of Earth regardless of any and all limitations of their earthly citizenship", I would submit that we may not wish to grant all Earth bound people Citizenship where they've been judged guilty of heinous crimes. I would reword this to remove the later part starting with "regardless of any and all limitations..."
  7. "based on the birthright of Humanity in the universe..." seems a bit arrogant to assume we have any entitlement within this universe.
  8. "recognized by the United Nations..." It's really hard to have this in the Declaration if it is not already true. As of now, Asgardia is little more than an internet media group stirring up attention. The UN has hardly recognized we even exist.
  9. "as Free and Independent States..." Why use the plural form of State? We have yet to establish a Nation, and yet you are declaring we have many States. We have yet to establish if our form of government will be Federated or Confederated...
  10. "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our sacred Honor..." Pledging one's life for a declaration is a strong and binding statement. However, it has not been established in the Constitution how (or if) the military will be setup. Are we all expected to serve time in the "pursuit of Peace" as warriors in the Asgardian Military?

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 12:33 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 13:53 UTC

AdamSpears, with all my respects... Starting from the basis  that it is not a Declaration made in the name of all the inhabitants of  the Earth, but of those who want to be considered as a Nation, Asgardia,  and from the first statement can not share what you expose.
To  speak on behalf of the inhabitants of all other nations, are the  declarations of the United Nations, the Declaration of Human Rights,  etc. We aspire to be recognized on an equal footing with  all other nations, and here we outline our principles, aspirations, and  as we are a diffuse people, we declare our unity, despite the physical  separation that may exist between us due to our special characteristic to come and reside scattered on the planet. Greetings :)

Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 14:51 UTC

On point 4 I would add an explicit reference to religions, beliefs and -as Kandrax pointed out- sexual orientation. This would not enter in conflict (as to what religions refers) with point 11, it actually aims to ensure equality among all Asgardians despite what any individual may practice on earth. 

These kind of documents must ensure all points are covered so in case any injustice or abuse happen this documents are clear enough to point out quick solutions.

Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 22:39 UTC


"Universal Law of Symmetry"

And who'll be in charge of enforcing these laws? Death the Kid? 

Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 22:41 UTC


I have integrated your suggestions into the document. Thank you for the thoughtful rewordings. 

I (along with the team) am now in the process of including the others, too. 

Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 22:42 UTC


Awesome, and thank you for your volunteer work.