Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 11:50 UTC

REMOVE "Protect Earth"  

@skieswanne,

"Outside of the Constitution? I'm not too sure. Yes, treaties will be the main structure. However, the power of, say, a military, must be limited to avoid infringement upon citizens rights; and to limit the power of the military, then the military must be somewhat defined (or prohibited) in the Constitution. 
However, this is an entirely different topic. "

I'm not saying we should not define limits on the Military (or Defense Force). Indeed, we have a duty to define those limitations. However, I don't believe Article 23 should even exist! As a nation of Advanced technology and engineering capabilities, we could certainly make treaties to provide protective services to the Planet. But it should not be our mandate!

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 00:42 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 12:08 UTC

@LoreZyra

"As a nation of Advanced technology and engineering capabilities, we could certainly make treaties to provide protective services to the Planet. But it should not be our mandate!"

Not our mandate, true. 

But certainly worth mentioning. If a guy asks me, "so, John, what is it that an Asgardian do? What's the whole point of Asgardia, given that there's already over a hundred of nations already around? ", then Asgardia's unique ability to protect mankind from space threats might become highly relevant, if not defining. 

See what I'm getting at? ;)

  Last edited by:  John Skieswanne (Asgardian)  on Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 12:44 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 12:47 UTC

@skieswanne,

" If a guy asks me, "so, John, what is it that an Asgardian do? What's the whole point of Asgardia, given that there's already hundreds of nations already around? ", then Asgardia's unique ability to protect mankind from space threats might become highly relevant, if not defining."

Is "the first Space nation" not good enough? Is not the advancement of our fellow man into space not a worthy enough point to convey? 

While I admit traveling to other planets with the ease shown in today's popular Sci-Fi such as Star Wars or Star Trek is a good deal into the future, each feat of man has been made on the tiny steps of our forefathers. Sure, "space threats" would be relevant, but I strongly argue against making it our defining feature. I would rather Asgardia be known as an Asteroid mining company than the new Earth Defense outpost.

Which would you want to join? A nation of Explorers? Or, a nation of Warriors?

Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 12:55 UTC

@LoreZyra

You misunderstand. I might be to blame, since my statements may appear ambiguous. 

To put it bluntly: 

I agree with you, Asgardia should not be a militaristic, "warrior" state. But its ability to defend Earth on occasions should nevertheless be part of its identity. It's this very ability which might earn Asgardia its independence. 

Additionally, "defence" is a very broad term. Scientific researches on potentially harmful asteroids could fall into the definition of "protecting the Earth", without ever involving even one mililtary person.


  Last edited by:  John Skieswanne (Asgardian)  on Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 13:15 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 13:29 UTC

@skieswanne,

"But its ability to defend Earth on occasions should nevertheless be part of its identity.

Again, I would not want to have Asgardia defined by it's ability to protect Earth. Advancements in Space Tech that includes shielding technologies or mining techniques, could very well lead to sufficient protection of our home planet. 

It's like saying my car is my shield simply because I can park it before my drive-way and prevent others from entering my property. Just because it can act as a shield should not be the characteristic that defines what my car does...

Furthermore, while perhaps You and I have no desire to see Asgardia transform into a Military state with a legal charter to protect Earth as defined in the Constitution, future generations may produce a tyrant that could pervert those clauses for protecting Earth into a new Warrior State. It would be easier to prevent this by voiding Article 23 altogether. And, furthermore not declare it as apart of identity in the DoU.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 00:42 UTC, Total number of edits: 3 times
Reason: Added clarification.

Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 14:29 UTC

As many before me did, I appreciated very much @guzlomi's work. He, as a lawyer, is a specialist, so able to reword the document in a more concise but even more meaninful shape.

My only concerns are about the parties' absence, still present into his art. 9 rewording: in my humble opinion, if we'll have to balance government's powers, to avoid having a monarchy, we'll need some kind of Parliament (you may even think it in terms of "high chamber", the government as Head of State and Ministries, and "low chamber", as citizens' representatives) as, in my opinion, "direct democracy" is nice but unviable when numbers grows beyond an handful of citizens.

Not only: as Asgardia will grow, on Earth or into space, many of us will have different needs to be represented, alone or as groups, so even not a single "low chamber" will do that but some parties, proportional composing it basing on votes.

Let me do a simple example, based on (far?) future: we'll go mining asteroids, we'll also establish settlements on places like Mars, the Moon, some other planets' moons, maybe asteroids' groups too. Now... are you sure the needs of the asteroid belt's miners will be the same as Mars' colonies ones which, in turn, will be the same as asgardians on Earth ones?
And how can asteroid belt's mines make their voice heard, without an Asteroid Belt Miners party, if that party won't be a legal subject into the "low chamber" (or Parliament)?

I know that means to "mirror" what's happening on Earth, but I think there is a reason if, after so many thousand years of human thought, and even after not that many centuries most of the Nations are set themselves free from monarchies, people decided to have "representative democracies", in one shape or another: most of the times people just don't have the knowledge to uphold it's reasons and, even when the knowledge is present, there is not the time (nor the money) to do it, as people usually have a job, 'cause of the need to earn money to survive and make a nice welfare for themselves and the family, still.

Leaving the government open to parties' access may be useful, mostly in the beginning, when we're few enough to "see all" and often the time to "vote on all". But parties are not made for just "vote on all", they're made for "do something", to gather people's needs and to shape them in form of laws. Laws which force the government to operate: is that what the government wants? not to be bound to people's needs?
At the moment, looking how things are going on here, reading the decrees, reading how this declaration have been written, I've some doubts we're not here to "just do whatever the (actual) government will ask us", as parties, so our representatives, will be banned from being a legal subject.

Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 14:30 UTC

I think I'm starting to agree with you, LoreZyra. Indeed we do not want Asgardia to devolve into a military state. But if we are going to keep "protection of Earth" as one of our reasons for existing then it should be in the Declaration of Unity, if anywhere, aside from treaties.

The Declaration of unity is where you state your intention, values, and Authority. The Constitution is where you state your unchanging rights, the structure of your government, and the rules by which the government.

I don't think that "protection of Earth" should be a right therefore not in the Constitution. And I think we can get along just fine without stating it in on Declaration of Unity.

I will note that I am still an advocate for changing the format of the Declaration of unity to read more of a letter of intent and less of a list of values or rights.


  • Adam Spears
  • Citizen
  • Asgardia

Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 14:58 UTC

 By: Elwe Thor(Asgardian) on 6 April 2017, 2:29 p.m.

As many before me did, I appreciated very much @guzlomi's work. He, as a lawyer, is a specialist, so able to reword the document in a more concise but even more meaninful shape.
My only concerns are about the parties' absence, still present into his art. 9 rewording: in my humble opinion, if we'll have to balance government's powers, to avoid having a monarchy, we'll need some kind of Parliament (you may even think it in terms of "high chamber", the government as Head of State and Ministries, and "low chamber", as citizens' representatives) as, in my opinion, "direct democracy" is nice but unviable when numbers grows beyond an handful of citizens.

This would be better stated in the Constitution thread rather than the DoU. The DoU is more of a name card than a bill of rights.

Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 15:46 UTC

@LoreZyra
This would be better stated in the Constitution thread rather than the DoU. The DoU is more of a name card than a bill of rights.

That for sure.
This is why I don't wish to read, into DoU, "there is no place for political parties in Asgardia".
I wish instead to read kind of "political parties are in the life of Asgardia, as they represent the needs of the citizens, and will be defined into it's Constitution".

Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 19:06 UTC

@Elwe Thor:

That counts as a suggestion. I have added it into the document for the record. 

:)

  Last edited by:  John Skieswanne (Asgardian)  on Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 19:13 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 6, 17 / Tau 12, 01 19:19 UTC

@LoreZyra

"Advancements in Space Tech that includes shielding technologies or mining techniques, could very well lead to sufficient protection of our home planet. "

My point exactly. "Protection" doesn't automatically imply military. It may very well refer to Asgardians' combined efforts at improving national technologies and skills, for the sake of Earth.

Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 00:03 UTC

By: skieswanne(Asgardian) on 6 April 2017, 7:19 p.m.

 "Protection" doesn't automatically imply military. It may very well refer to Asgardians' combined efforts at improving national technologies and skills, for the sake of Earth. 

If those technologies happen to shield Earth as well, then it is by coincidence rather than a legal charter

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 00:41 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 00:41 UTC

 By: AdamSpears(Asgardian) on 6 April 2017, 2:30 p.m.

I think I'm starting to agree with you, LoreZyra. Indeed we do not want Asgardia to devolve into a military state. But if we are going to keep "protection of Earth" as one of our reasons for existing then it should be in the Declaration of Unity, if anywhere, aside from treaties.
The Declaration of unity is where you state your intention, values, and Authority. The Constitution is where you state your unchanging rights, the structure of your government, and the rules by which the government.
I don't think that "protection of Earth" should be a right therefore not in the Constitution. And I think we can get along just fine without stating it in on Declaration of Unity.

Regarding "protection of Earth," (as I've mentioned in the Constitution ToC thread) there should be no legal charter defined explicitly to protect Earth. If technologies developed by Asgardia to protect the Orbital Stations just happen to shield Earth, then it would by coincidence rather than legal mandate. Furthermore, it is rather presumptuous to believe that all Earth Nations would be happy about our declaration and/or Constitutional mandate to "Protect Earth." 

Constitution is not truly the place to put all citizen rights and grievances. This is best reserved for a separate document such as a "Bill of Rights" or other civil code. The Constitution must be focused on limitation and structure of the Government itself. For rights that must be "universal" and indispensable, these can be placed in the Constitution and its Amendments.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 00:54 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 01:51 UTC

 By: skieswanne(Asgardian) on 6 April 2017, 12:55 p.m.

@LoreZyra
You misunderstand. I might be to blame, since my statements may appear ambiguous.
To put it bluntly:
I agree with you, Asgardia should not be a militaristic, "warrior" state. But its ability to defend Earth on occasions should nevertheless be part of its identity. It's this very ability which might earn Asgardia its independence

"Earn Asgardia its independence" from what?
What legal entity are we trying to escape in order to declare independence?

Are we not trying to boldly go where no Nation has gone before? Our endeavors not honorable enough to be self-dependent on our journey into Space from the cradle we call Earth?

Apr 7, 17 / Tau 13, 01 03:19 UTC

Yes you have to learn about mans history so as to not try and repeat mistakes off the past like Stalin or Hitler ,Mao or a Jefferson Davis or Wilson