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.