May 27, 17 / Can 07, 01 19:36 UTC

Re: Discussion of the draft Constitution  

Hello Asgardians

I agree with BloodyClean statements, I don't like monarquies, this is a very old concept, and also do not allows the constant progress of a nation. The Asgardia goverment can ask for money via sales of services, goods or any other way but tax. I'll pay the taxes as I do in my country but I want to receive something in return, like roads, schools, health care, etc. In the chapter 32.11 says that the HoS will have inmunity, I do not agree on that. It should become a regular citizen, no special privileges. Another point in 33.12 (a) is the huge amount of power confering to the HoS by the constitution, where he can choose two of the mayor power of the state. And last but not least, in 33.12(b)  I'm really afraid of the power to dissolve the parliament, that is inconceivable!

And my final, the is no mention at all about the right of privacy, it mention right of freedom but never the right of privacy, and this is a very important matter.

Best regards


May 27, 17 / Can 07, 01 19:42 UTC

I agree wiht Marcelo Moura too!

  Last edited by:  simon Santana (Asgardian)  on May 27, 17 / Can 07, 01 19:58 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 27, 17 / Can 07, 01 21:31 UTC

Read here please.

May 27, 17 / Can 07, 01 21:48 UTC

@Dmitry Novoseltsev
To the Constitution needs to be included about the following thesis: "The taxes of Asgardia charged solely only with incomes of Asgardian citizens, derived from their activities in the interests of Asgardia and using its infrastructure".

Well, I don't remember in which thread, but that's exactly what I wrote before. The reason is quite simple: if someone have no income (where "income" is even intended as "benefit from Asgardia's services") why should sponsor who is having, if not on donation basis?

There are other pratical reasons too: to apply a tax, a Government have to know the amount of money/resources a citizen have at his/her disposition. But there is no pratical way to have this knowledge (sure a foreign country's government won't disclose it to Asgardia, just to say) unless these resources are created into Asgardia itself: that's why Asgardia's Government can tax "Asgardia's produced income" only, ad in proportional way.
About the "proportional way", as we claim to be a "scientific nation", I expect financial experts to make some kind of formula, instead of "levels" adopted by some countries. And a threshold under which one have not to pay taxes.

May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 02:48 UTC

Colleagues, does anybody know who the developers of the draft, or is it a conspiracy?

Do they read this forum and react somehow to the objection? 

I would like to hear some answers – if not agreed with the objection, at least convincing argument.

May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 04:03 UTC

@Dmitry Novoseltsev(Asgardian) on 28 May 2017, 2:48 a.m.

Colleagues, does anybody know who the developers of the draft, or is it a conspiracy?
Do they read this forum and react somehow to the objection?
I would like to hear some answers – if not agreed with the objection, at least convincing argument.

As I understand it, the initial document was written in Russian by Dr. Igor Ashurbeyli before being passed to his LEGAL team and translators. @Lena De Winne is the direct contact that represents Dr. Ashurbeyli and is the CEO of NGO Asgardia.  I have read (page 3) that he also demanded to get all community feedback by May 28 (today, 10 days!! after releasing the first English version of the Draft). The *rush* seems to be motivated by some ill-conceived idea of having the nation established by Asgard 1, 0001 (July 18, 2017). Dr. I. Ashurbeyli does not have a profile on this forum and does not communicate with any of us directly... We can only talk/email @Lena... Does the good doctor know what's going on? Does he care about our feedback? I have no hard evidence either way...

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 05:08 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: Added dead line link

May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 05:13 UTC

@Dmitry Novoseltsev
Colleagues, does anybody know who the developers of the draft, or is it a conspiracy?
Do they read this forum and react somehow to the objection?
I would like to hear some answers – if not agreed with the objection, at least convincing argument.

Well... "reaction"... all I know is they "react" a lot if you ask too much things or make too much assumptions (or create threads they don't want/like).
About the word in your third sentence, the 7th one to be exact (I underlined it for your convenience), it's common agreement you can't be so rude to use it in a forum which can be read even by kids: use the "A-word" instead, please.

Worth remembering Dr. A (this forum seems full of A-words...) is the boss of Ms. De Winne: pretty sure "he knows" and, probably, "asked" her to behave that way.

May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 10:58 UTC

@Rainbow - I understand you are trying to keep the focus on the draft constitution and I am not for or against any particular proposal, However I would think that someone re-writing the proposal following the exact format of the original was a pretty big comment on the official draft.

In making comments it is not responsible or productive to just say "This is rubbish". There must be constructive suggestions of why it is thought to be "rubbish" and how a person proposes it would be made better.

It would seem to me that everyone who has "re-written" part or all of the official draft is actually making the most beneficial comments. Therefore criticism, questioning and discussion of the why's and how's of such proposals will lead to the most beneficial informational comments to be passed onto the administration team.  After all these comments are to be summarised for the admin team and it would be better to summarise properly debated and presented comments with documented reasons and proposed options than to just hand in a great pile of ideas on which there has been no rational debate or proper understanding or agreement.

  Last edited by:  Paul Bellamy (Asgardian)  on May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 10:59 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 12:44 UTC

@LoreZyra on 27 May 2017, 6:10 p.m.

<<   I seriously doubt we will see anything (2nd/3rd/etc) new before Asgard 1, 0001 (July 18, 2017).... >>

I believe you are right and that this is a major mistake on their part. 

If no one of the core team is following what is being said in this forum, they might be surprised by the results of the vote or by the lack of participation on June 18.

The fact that no one from the core team is here to answer the concerns of citizens or explain the rationale behind some articles of the draft Constitution is a bit frustrating. But, perhaps, they are trying to manage too many aspects of project Asgardia at the same time and they cannot keep up.

May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 13:08 UTC

Overall, I find the rough draft acceptable.

I was surprised to see the use of a Constitutional Monarchy be put into play, but with the structure we already had in the planning stages (multiple ministries and a head of state) it was a logical conclusion.

In any case, the Head of Nation can be limited in power or given power based upon what is decided by the final draft. It's not an absolute monarchy.

I would like to see the age range be a little wider for offices, though. Or at least a median age range based on our population.

May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 13:56 UTC

@Elwe Thor - Sorry, I did not understand what I wrote incorrectly. English is not my native language, maybe I have something badly translated. Let indicate the moderators. 

About contact developers of the Constitution - I may be wrong, but the situation something reminds me of the Kurt Vonnegut's story, where on the spacecraft of the Mars colonists were two buttons - "Start" and "Stop". The "Start" button launched automatically on the fly, and the button "Stop" was generally not connected to anything - it was just for psychological comfort of the crew. Perhaps this discussion is also for psychological comfort and not taken into account.

May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 14:09 UTC

@Dmitry Novoseltsev(Asgardian) on 28 May 2017, 1:56 p.m.

Sorry, I did not understand what I wrote incorrectly. English is not my native language, maybe I have something badly translated. Let indicate the moderators. 

Actually, your English is just fine. I found no problem with your English as I am a native English speaker. However, Elwe Thor was being sarcastic with his words. No need to censor the word "answers" with "a-word..." Some have developed a pessimistic view of recent developments with Asgardia.Space - not everyone wishes to bow before a King.

Regarding your ideas on a Direct Democracy, would you have any ideas to implement it? How can it be scalable and stable as it grows in population?

May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 14:49 UTC

The head of state (or his commercial entity) is writing the consitution, placing himself and his progeny in control. Nothing to see here, move along.

May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 14:50 UTC

11. The Head of State enjoys immunity and is granted a lifetime guarantee of personal safety and the safety of his/her property after leaving the role.

There are just to much privilages to the head of state. He is like a God/Dictator by those rules, nobody can do anything against him and he is elected by the former head of state so that means same shit as here on earth, but different spoon to eat the shit they give us. I was really into all this but now as I read this constituon I myself am disapointed.

Everything would be lead by one dude, the head of state... It doesn't look like a free state a future space nation. It just looks like a comunits, fashist, dictatorship by one dude who calls himself a head of the state. He controls the cort, laws, diplomacy, taxes, banks and everything else.... Just wtf?

11. The Head of State may dissolve Parliament. The Prosecutor General may propose the dissolution of Parliament to the Royal Court. If the Royal Court agrees with the arguments made, it may dissolve Parliament in accordance with the law.

Parliament is the only thing citizens have and it could be disolved by the head....

Gor really? Money, the root to all Earth problems...

Taxes for a idea of a space nation? Really...

The National Audit Office comprises the Chairman of the National Audit Office and auditors. The National Audit Office Chairman is appointed for a five year term and removed from post by the Head of State. National Audit Office auditors are appointed by Parliament independently for five year terms. 

Inspection is also controlled by the Head of state..

Article 47. Special procedure for election of a new Head of State If elections for a new Head of State are scheduled within the first five years of adoption of the Constitution, the requirements of Asgardia’s Constitution concerning the candidate for the position of Head of State holding space citizenship for at least five years do not apply.

Who does have the space citizenship as long as 5 years? Nobody.

That just means that Igor can't be replaced in those first 5 years...

The part where people must be older then 40 to actually do political things is also a huge load of shit to protect Igor because most of the Asgardia population is younger then 40 years. 

I understand, you created this and you just want to protect yourself in it but creating a dictatorship where you could be called King and have his own private ,,corporation,, is just not the idea which I signed for, when all this started....

May 28, 17 / Can 08, 01 14:51 UTC

With the base of the topic tha i was done, this is the data from the votes from Asgardians:

Direct democracy
Constitutional monarchy
Parliamentary republic
Constitutional republic
Liquid Democracy
Democratic Meritoracy
Federal Republic

Theres a lot of people who want Tecnocracy or Direct Democracy, it would be good if this as anexed in the final draft as a sugestion.

topic from the poll:

Humberto - ANBR