May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 06:54 UTC

Re: Discussion of the draft Constitution  

About taxes:

Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 4, p. 10:
     "5. Asgardian citizens must pay lawfully established taxes and levies."

In my view to be acceptable, the statement should be more explicit and read 

Taxes on revenues obtained from the Asgardian economy would be paid to Asgardia whereas taxes on revenues obtained from another country's economy would be paid to the government of  the country (as required by the laws of that country). 

Preamble in the Declaration of unity: 

Chapter 1, p. 4:
Instead of
     "based on the birthright of Man in the universe"
I would much prefer something less human-centric such as
     "based on the birthright of all sentient life in the universe".

The Universe is quite a big place and mankind is probably not the most intelligent species habiting it. So I would suggest a little more modesty. I consider it the birthright of all sentient beings to try to survive, explore the environment, learn from experience and evolve in the direction of their choice.

All my life, since childhood, I have felt that other animal species were unfairly being treated. I will thus be very reluctant to subscribe to any project heavily based on humanistic (ianthropocentric) values. Of course, I am aware this is probably not the view of the majority.

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 07:10 UTC

@ bigred - not offended at all. This process is meant to stimulate discussion from different points of view.

If it seems that I am screaming blue murder, it is because I have seen a lot of people on this forum put an obvious large amount of time and effort into intelligent discussions and positive offerings about the structure and reach of government, how the economy could be structured, how the legal system should work, the potential rights and obligations and citizens (and so on), seemingly for naught. My evidence - the proposal to operate Asgardia as a constitutional monarchy.

As best I could (without the benefit of a search function), I have trawled back through old threads about what structure the government should take. I have been unable to find a single post where someone has said something to the effect "Hey, why not a constitutional monarchy? " Not one. If people believe their previous well thought our suggestions and arguments were not even looked at and that decisions are being made unilaterally without consultation, what are they going to do? Perhaps yell louder? Maybe get a little bit aggravated?

BTW, Australia's constitution about taxation:

  • s.51 "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
  • ...
  • (ii) taxation;"

  • No mention of a constitutional obligation of citizens to pay tax at all.

  Updated  on May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 08:25 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Typo

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 07:52 UTC

I have reservations about the whole constitutional monarchy thing. I do not see that idea working out due to the nature of man when power over others is involved. The governing system should have been one that makes government officials responsible to the people they govern. So, they can not just do as they please 


May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 08:23 UTC

A number of us have commented on the phrase "ideal parameters of the Moon" wondering where it came from.  In my initial post I didn't have any idea and suggested it might be a translation error.  I still believe it is probably partially due to translation however one thing intriguing me about the statement is that the word moon is capitalised. 

In my research I did find an obscure reference to the "parameters of the Moon" (same phrasing) so I guess it could have some actual meaning to the author - although, once again I think that meaning has been lost in the translation to English. 

I think it is too far off topic and probably ridiculously emotive for this forum so I won't post it here.  If anyone is curious then feel free to contact me on my public address p_bellamy @ hotmail dot com

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 08:44 UTC

@scarbs - I'm not sure I see a distinction between the combination of what is written in section 5, 51-55 of our constitution and the single statement made in the draft.

Australian Constitution simply says all laws mentioned or arising from the constitution are binding on all australian citizens. Then in section 51-55 it lists that the parliament has the power to enact laws for a variety of things including taxes - ergo it is every australian citizens obligation to pay taxes, duties, levies etc.

The draft says "5. Asgardian citizens must pay lawfully established taxes and levies"

I agree that it is not the best way to encode it and the wording in English is way to emotive however there's not a lot of difference there.

Apart from the people who don't want to pay any tax, surely we aren't missing the point that the taxes and levies have to be "lawfully established". Surely the intent of this is they have to go through some process of parliament.

Also as @Petrv and @(the person with the meditating alien avatar) pointed out there needs to be some thought that these are future necessities and simply need to be established in the document at the time of enactment.

[edit] However I do take your point about the level of frustration. You've seen me get on my soapbox about feedback and clarification on previous forums.  I simply sought out those involved and contacted them directly, without demands or pushing my ideas (I think that is the key). They responded within a time frame that was suitable for my questions (which are probably not as important as I think).  That's also how I found out who wrote this draft document (see my first post on this forum).  For most things we all have access to Rebekah and Jason anyway and they work as closely with the NGO as anyone is likely to get at the moment.

  Last edited by:  Paul Bellamy (Asgardian)  on May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 08:54 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 08:52 UTC

As I said before, this draft would be a deal-breaker for me.

I joined this project after reading the publicly available information at the given time, because I saw a big potential to break free from overcome political systems and create a truly democratic system, a self regulating society.

Even in the communities suggestions I could see, that most were heading towards more traditional approaches, I made my suggestions and got some positive and some critic feedback on it, but far less than I was expecting, so I thought to myself "let's see what they finally come up with" I was expecting some kind of representative democracy with special terms for the founding fathers, depending on the conditions I would have been willing to give that a go as I really do support the goals of this project, but a monarchy with a lifetime immunity for the king, who is able to change pailament and main Court, longtime legislative periods, an pailament with a minimum age of roughly the double of the average citizen's age, an obligation for the citizens to pay undefined taxes (and the list goes on) are conditions I am not willing to accept.

Don't get me wrong, when this document is finalized, it does have potential to create a nation that is able to reach the main goals of the project, and I do understand the will of the founding fathers to keep things in their hands, but I am not willing to support the way this is going as I see catastrophic failure two or three generations ahead, when someone becomes king who forgets that all that firepower he has at hands is meant to protect earth and humankind. If that happens he couldn't even be made responsible because of the lifetime immunity, and I think that is why asgardia, with that constitution won't be recognized by most countries, I even could imagine that some countries might take military actions against a monarch trying to establish a habitat in earth orbit, that by the definition of the constitutional goal to protect earth from internal and external threads would have to be heavily armed and to protect its habitants also heavily armored. (even lightly armed satellites or ones that are able to emmit strong electromagnetic fields would be a major thread for earthly communication and navigation systems)

So, if this is the way things are going to go, I won't be around here after the votes have been counted.

Edit: and I do get the point of the ones, who think we were lied at, as we were told, the suggestions of the community would be drafted into this document, and I don't see any of that. Similarities between suggestions and this document are there because the topic in question had to be there. Even the changes to the toc of this document that were made by the community weren't taken into account.

  Last edited by:  Tordt Schmidt (Translator, Asgardian)  on May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 09:09 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 08:58 UTC

The distinction is a simple one. 

Constitutions should only do what their name suggests - constitute a state, establish a government and the detail the "how" of the workings of that government. Legislation is the legal protections and obligations that the state provides/imposes on its citizens in compliance with the constitution.

Therefore, legal obligations on the citizen have no place in a constitution. They belong in legislation enacted under a constitution.

  Updated  on May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 08:59 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 10:17 UTC

I think making it a monarchy is a great idea because it allows Igor to remain a central part of the organisation (one that he created) even if others are voted into leading positions. My personal views on monarchies are neutral however.

Edit: I havent read the whole constitution yet but is there anything in there about denouncing citizenship if someone was to change their minds at a later date?

  Last edited by:  Thomas Paul (Asgardian)  on May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 10:19 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Added a question

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 13:04 UTC

It is the form of government in which the ruler is symbolically head of the state and the actual executive authority is the ruler. Nowadays England, Spain, netherlands, Luxembourg, Japan, Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc. Countries are governed by the constitutional monarchy. 
I accept this form of government.I will use admission. As a citizen? As a volunteer? Who will I be on that day? Google translate.... thank you

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 13:36 UTC

I don't get either where the idea of a monarchy for Asgardia comes from. I think this idea of a monarch who can dissolve the parliament, has a veto right, appoints the key leaders of the state and above all has an immunity is really far away (even schizophrenic, sorry for the term^^') of the spirit of the Asagrdia that we were involved in. The first parts of the draft of the constitution seemed pretty good but when i began to read the part concerning the government and the head of state (and the required age to be in the government) I was shocked. 

On the site of asgardia you say "ASGARDIA is governed by a Council of 12 Ministers" thus I thought it will be a Swiss-like government, the ministers (each one managing a specific field) would be the executive power and the parliament the legislative one. It is the parliament (elected by the people) who appoint the ministers and the head of state. The head of state being one of the ministers. I'm not saying that we should copy-past the system of Switzerland, but we should be inspired by it because at my knowledge this system minimize greatly the risk to end some day with a dictator.

Also the name of the currency isn't the best one..

I apologize for the mistakes, english isn't my first language, I hope it was understandable.

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 15:03 UTC

I find it confusing that for a state which is made up of primarily of the 20-40 age bracket that most of the positions require a minimum age of 50, is the point to be unrepresentative of the people? Also the procedure for a new head of state/government is confusing or at least to me it seems unclear and perhaps a little chaotic when compared to countries such as the UK, USA or Germany. Perhaps simplify it to direct vote by the people to elect the new head of state/government? Other than that on the whole the constitution seems good and sound with check and balances on the various arms of government and the ability to amend it as needed and it promotes the rights and freedoms we on asgardia share.

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 15:41 UTC

The truth, here, is I'm feeling betraied: by Dr. Ashurbeyli, by his wannabe Constitution, by all it happened into this forum (but not by the users!) I saw from the beginning: all the activities running behind the scenes, all our questions remained (still now) without any answer, all the requests of transparency and to see some kind of (readable) roadmap of things was going on, no answer at all. I read so many "we're working on it" that I can't even count, but nothing like some "we did this and that, answering to this request: does it seems right or in need for some change/fix?". No dialogue at all, no words from officials nor from the CEO. Everytime "things are growing up and next month/year/century we'll tell you"... I never read some real news, maybe something like "we've been at <some place> to speak of <something>", no transcripts, no explanations... and now, on these basis, is it supposed I've to take all that as a closed box?
The "Constitution" have been the final blow to my (already little) faith in the chances this "kingdom" have to reach the space, with it's klingon-like currency.

Who presented himself to us as a scientists, with so many titles, an indiscussed authority into informatics, physics and electronic fields,  such a beautiful face, looks like a good grandfather, though not that old, all the time moving around the world, speaking to a lot of persons... and he doesn't know english, also! incredible.
Well... I passed the age I believed in Santa Claus.
I'm seeing he founded NGO Asgardia, which data (registration and so on) I can't read nowhere in the whole website (and don't tell me "search the web": if I've to dig the web to find anything it just means someone doesn't want I know it), recently founded Asgardia AG  (headquartered in Switzerland), registered Asgardia trademarks by way GOR Corp., Cyprus (where, by the way, he have nationality, other than Russia)... so... who really is Asgardia's future king?
I'm not interested in any answer, believing it won't even come, as usual.

All this become like some kind of asgardian-vs-asgardian mud fight, with no intervention at all from CEO nor officials: we have to "invent" our own answers, basing them on whispers, speculations, feelings. Well, my feeling is I'll vote NO to this Constitution, and I'm not seeing a chance it will be modified at all: a few days, as I wrote, are more than enough to just read it. Having a feedback is just not-really-wanted, the same as for flag, insignia, anthem and motto: where the motto have been the first to fall.

This is why I ceased to write, here: having to be negative only, my opinion won't help anyone in improving the things. I also think Dr. Ashurbeily (I can still avoid, at now, to call him King Igor) is really not interested into reading our improving proposals, nor his legal team, my dear @LoreZyra: it's not that "they had no time", as they had more than a month (but leaving us a few days), they just didn't do it, as AIRC CEO was interested to become a king and to have some subjects to pay for it (doesn't it remember you something?).

In my country I pay taxes basing on my income: which is/will be my income into Asgardia? I'll be glad to pay a fraction of it, even if, at now, a fraction of zero is still zero.

  Last edited by:  Luca Coianiz (Asgardian)  on May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 15:49 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: precisation about "forum activity"

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 17:56 UTC

Additional concerns about this draft constitution: This draft constitution seems to give the AIRC company the right to tax 180k people. This draft constitution appears to give the company AIRC the ability to create laws from which those 180k people are compelled to comply. (See Article 9. Key Citizen Obligations. "3. All persons on Asgardian territory must comply with Asgardia’s Constitution, its laws and regulations effective on Asgardian territory, as well as respecting Asgardia’s Supreme Values. 4. All citizens of Asgardia must comply with the Constitution, Asgardia’s laws and regulations, respect and implement its Supreme Values irrespective of their location, unless this results in violation of the law of the country in which they are located.") Even if the intention was benevolent (although incomplete and the implications not fully thought out), this is very new territory with VERY significant implications. This needs more thought, a lot of thought, a lot of discussion and care. Ten days is not enough time for the community to provide a considered response. Particularly as many people work 6 to 7 days a week and have limited time to read the 33 page document and come to a considered opinion.

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 18:00 UTC

  • CHAPTER 1.  Point 4.  All citizens of Asgardia are equal, regardless of their country of origin, residence, citizenship, race, nation, gender, language, or  nancial standing.

    Unfortunately the constitution is not consistent with point 4 of the declaration of unity.

  • Article 32. Asgardia’s Head of State

    1.  The Head of State is the most senior o cial of Asgardia, the Guarantor of the Constitution, who sets the main directions of domestic and foreign policy and represents the state in the country and abroad.
    2. When dealing with other heads of state, Asgardia’s Head of State may also be referred to as the President, Monarch, King and otherwise in accordance with protocol depending on the other party.
    3. One year prior to reaching the age limit or in the event of a voluntary resignation, the Head of State nominates a candidate for the position of Head of State on a hereditary or other basis. Two other candidates or the same candidate for the position of Head of State are nominated by Parliament and the Royal Council of Supreme Values.  e election of the Head of State is put
      to a referendum in accordance with the law of Asgardia.

  • A king is not, and never has been equal to a subject.
    The citizens can not elect the head of state, and therefore are not equal to the head of state or Parliament and the Royal Council of Supreme Values.

    In summary, the document is not internally self consistent. 

May 22, 17 / Can 02, 01 18:15 UTC

  • Asgardians, 
  • Use this poll to point the type of governement that we think its best to Asgardia:

I would like to know if the constitution Volunteers can use the poll to make adjustion to the Draft?