@LoreZyra

Well, given the events in Middle East and how it's dragging the world into chaos, I can somehow understand the HoN's desire to seek distance from earthly politics. 

:)

"Politics"

This is one thing I don't get. Politics is not bad. The politics of today is kinda messed up, but politics is the process by which a group conducts itself. Politics is everywhere. Work, home, at the market. You discuss, inform, and persuade people while adhering to a standard code, if not loose code, of conduct. That's politics. Attempting to creating and/or operating a group, organization or government and wanting to not engage in politics is like saying, "I'll just take a walk around the block, but I don't want to us my legs."

• Adam Spears
• Citizen
• Asgardia

The Politic is the solution.
Politicians are the trouble.

I really love the spirit behind the "DECLARATION OF UNITY OF ASGARDIA" but I face some problems with the letters.

I like the spirit of the No9 but the letters cause some problems as Asgardia does not engage in politics, there is no place for political parties in Asgardia. But every Asgardian can freely participate in political life on Earth.

A vote is an act of politic then, how I vote if I'm not allowed to do politic and how do Asgardia asking to is citizens to vote?

The activities of the government are politics than do the government of Asgardia will remand without any activities?

Members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed: are all politic actions than do all members of the government of Asgardia will be considerate as a criminal?.

I do believe also as to be recognized by the UN we will need a minimum of politic activities,

What is the meaning behind the "on Earth" on the number 11 (Asgardia is a country of free spirit, science and internationalism. At the same time, every Asgardian can freely practice any religion on Earth)?

I do believe as the mention most be (every Asgardian can freely practice or not practice any religion).

Item #12 stands out to me as something that requires further explanation. History and a sense of origin is important for a people's identity and sense of place. As a result, I'd be concerned that forsaking Earth history would lead to an important loss of context. Additionally, the loss of Earth history may imply a willingness to ignore or deny the important lessons we can learn from our past.

@sylvain & @smrichard3

I think you will find that the intent of the wording of the original has been lost in translation.

Point 9: Politics is being used as a definition of lobbying for position and power over others without care for the state or others (an apt description of what happens in our world currently)

Point 11: Is just very poorly worded

Point 12: Is a poorly translated statement concerning not repeating the history and problems of history due to the way we teach and regard it.

It is a problem that the English translation is very poorly worded and the phrasing leads to some rather horrible knee-jerk reactions however we need to look at the intent. This can be found if you look at the background of the people involved in the project and the founder himself.  We need to look at their previous releases, their companies and current work to get a good cross reference to begin understanding the intent of the DoU original. They are very high level consultants to UNOOMA and the space industry.  Obviously they are dealing with political thinking on a daily basis and the recent release of the table of contents for the constitution shows that they have well developed ideas on governmental structure that do not preclude political debate and structure or the lessons of history.

A lot of people posting here do not have English as their first language either so we have to learn to divine the meaning and intent of the statements rather than taking them on face value.  One purpose of these forums is to ensure that poorly worded statements such as these are not released as formal declarations by the Asgardian administration.

Hope that helps

Reading once again everything in the discussion ... it is clear that the most controversial points are those that refer to Politics and History. And it does not seem strange to me ... they are two social matters ... that affect us to a greater or lesser extent to all.

Point 9) Deepening the idea, I would say politics, is easier to theorize than History. We can make a handbook of what is politically correct in Asgardia, and it has in a way been sketched in all points concerning the relationship with the Earth and the other States. But even if we say we are not going to do politics ... politics will come to us unless we live in a bubble. If we are part of the Earth States community, we have a political relationship with them. And whatever form of government we adopt, whenever the citizens participate (otherwise it would be a dictatorship), we will be doing politics, whatever name we call it. The bad thing is not politics ... it's the politicians and our laziness that has let them do what they want people with a lot of ambition and little morale.

Therefore, my proposal is: politics yes, organize a structure of participation that ensures that we all have access, involve us all in their day to day, a system of control that ensures that there is abuse of power or prevarication. (Rotating charges?)

Point 12) ... the point about History ... I have already expressed it twice, but resume it again ... History can divide us, because we come from many countries, and in each one can be seen differently ...

My Proposal is: To make a General History of Humanity, trying to be aseptic, scientific, incorporating all the objective and incontrastable data. I do not care so much about the dates, as it is not to make a global comparison of human evolution at a given moment ... I care more about the facts verified. From there ... write Our History ...

Hello guys, i am very exited by the evolve of the asgardia, but, i think, like a human, that we can't forget the history of the humans. Because, in the past can be observed our mistakes, and we can resolve then by analisys of past to build the future. Throught this, we can't say "forget the earth nations history", because the nations history build our history too. We need to see it, understand it, and resolve it! Forget anything is not solution for nothing, and won't help us to build the future that 'll stand the freedom, happyness, health or values that stand us by humans and thinkers. If i understood the discussion, asgardia don't like to make us to forget everythink, but is considering a mistake by forget the history to build a new history. We can do like jesus's people and begin the history by the zero considering the born of one "reason".
Sorry if i unspected any dogma or religion saing about jesus, but it's true.

History can't divide us, because we are humans that need to understand the thinks that was ocurred.
If a aleman forget the past, or a brazilian forget the past (1964 in our history), if a american forget the past (about nuclear bomb like power demonstration), if the every countries forget the past, we 'll have no way to see and decide to don't travel to damage our equals. We need the history to see the mistakes! We nedd the politics to stand a way to the countrie and the citzens. Phylosophy stands the history understoody, and the history open a way to we do anything it's according the all cultures and eliminating the damage to our self. We 'll not divided by the history, but by the common sense time. Brazilians are divided by this, americans are divided by this, the same thing that divide everyone is the common time. Brazilians are fighting today to own equality, justice and stands to everyone a life without a iron ball to jail us in the work and destroy the human think, the human sense of phylosophy and the human knowledge about is "What's?". We can't forget the history, but we need to understand it, and have etical position, and continue to do the asgardia objectives! We can be more than forgetfulness or the art of "stand it in the past and let's build the future with the same mistake".

relly enjoying the message; it really will be something to see how this grows.

Hi,

Are there time for a last post?

Well, Is very nice the Declaration but Politics dont are the answer, technics are, science are. 

I belive we need to have an Economy based in resources and work for it. Tech answer troubles, and resources put the real limits.

Salutes for all, Im very happy in true, for be g¿here!

I agree that point 12 should be removed. History is very important for not repeating the mistake sof the past.

By: guzlomi(Asgardian) on 13 April 2017, 11:53 a.m.

Regarding the discussion about the goals and purpose of Asgardia, protect the Earth and so on. Well, that is one of the core reasons to create this space nation. The Doctor said this very clear. If not, we would be a private enterprise like Space X to travel to space, launch satellites and maybe mine some asteroid in the future. We need a different and higher purpose, or why the other Nations will recognize us at their own level? There are NASA, ESA, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and other space agencies. But not a State whose main goal is to protect Earth from outer space threats and keep peace in space. These are our higher goals and distintive founding principles. If we strip Asgardia from them, we are only a group of space entrepreneurs. Just my opinion.

First, there are several political issues with establishing a Nation that happens to encompass the space above where Air-Jets can fly. As I mentioned previously, not everyone would be so kind to say thanks for keeping the space above our heads "safe." No ones wants to be held hostage to the Nation above your head. Not saying we shouldn't protect our home. Rather, it should be perceived as non-malevolent and a happy byproduct of having an Asgardian Station above your skies. Having this defined as a Constitutional Article could make it perceived as a military installation and tantamount to war by less refined leaders of the World. What would stop nations with capabilities of launching missiles into space from blowing up our fledgling Station(s)?
Second, I doubt most of our troubles would originate from space. If we are to build technologies to protect Earth from Space-born threats, we must also built/enhance technologies that would protect the Station and our ships from Earth-born warfare.
Third, this would chain-us for generations to come unless they make an effort to amend the Constitution. Show me where, historically, it has been easy to remove parts of the founding documents in any nation? (Granted, I may be getting too far ahead of myself... but like inertia, it's really hard to get things to change without an outside force or motivator.)
Furthermore, why setup a nation/state rather than a enterprise like SpaceX et al? Why not establish ourselves as a nation on the Moon first? Why must it be stations orbiting the planet? Seems to me that a billionaire could setup an enterprise to mine asteroids (and the Moon) faster than setting up a stable nation bound for space (around Earth).

Of course we can debate if something is more suitable to be in the declaration or in the Constitution, but the reality is that the main debate is if it has to appear or not, and the wording of it. I don't know why there is so short time to debate and why we have this hurry to vote. We are not at war nor under threat so we can take more time to write the founding documents of the first space nation.

This point remains curious in my mind. If you notice the number of people actively debating the points and suggested documents, there are not that many that could possibly represent the will of all people signed up for this adventure. The hurried vote and process could have been better organized to engage more people. Unfortunately, those that fail to objectively consider all information will be subject to the terms they didn't write. (Or, forfeit their potential rights as a citizen of Asgardia.)

Whatever the result I should be comfortable (unless a disaster happened)
Waiting for the final text and lets see if more debate and modifications can be suggested.

Indeed. There is not much more I find begging for more debate within the confines of the DoU. Unless there is a surge of advocates, the best we can do is: continue to wait and be actively engaged.

@Guzlomi - As stated in my posts, I'm in complete agreement with your intent and meaning here.  At this stage of the project we can debate all we want however we must realise the context of the situation and make our suggestions accordingly.  This forum is about the content of the DoU and our suggestions are really regards the wording because this document is a declaration of the purpose and desire of the founders (not our desires) in setting up this nation state. This is the reason I just reworded the badly phrased English version of the original and didn't change it in any other way.  This document is a rallying point for those of like mind to set as their motivation for being involved in the project.

I understand @LoreZyra's thought about people being concerned about someone having what might be termed weapons in space.  In fact this is a tricky area considering the UN treaty on weapons in space (which any state wishing to go to space must be a signatory to if they don't want to be labelled rogue like North Korea). However @LoreZyra I have to say that, politically, stating this as a purpose for the nation is a very good ploy.  I'm sure you understand that one of the reasons the good doctor is making this play for statehood is that currently space is only accessible to nation states.  This is by political agreement of the nation states who have the power to enforce it.  If his dream of expanding the human race into space is to come to fruition he needs to navigate this political minefield. He has found a way that just might work. But part of doing it in plain public view is that he must be able to put a "green" face on it.  There can be nothing "greener" about space than protecting the general public from the unknown dangers emanating from space.

@guzlomi

 I don't know why there is so short time to debate and why we have this hurry to vote. We are not at war nor under threat and we can take more time to write the founding documents of the first space nation.

That's what I say.  What's the rush?