May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 12:36 UTC

Re: Discussion of the draft Constitution  

What is this?

Heritable Gerontocracy?!

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 14:05 UTC

Due to concerns about the term "propaganda of immorality" could I ask that something more specific than the concept of 'morals' be considered? Moral codes tend to be amorphous and can be manipulated to mean pretty much anything that is disagreed with by the holder. A constitution should always be written with an eye on possible abuses of it by any future party to it.

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 14:28 UTC

Серьезным упущением, на мой взгляд, является то, что проект Конституции Асгардии не включает такой цивилизационной ценности как семья. Семья в Асгардии может формироваться в нескольких вариантах: создаваемая гражданами Асгардии, и состоящая из Гражданина Асгардии и земного жителя, и вхождением земной семьи в этом её качестве в гражданство Асгардии. По любому варианту, семейные отличия Асгардца от семейных признаков земного жителя, должны быть прописаны в Конституции. Например, гражданин Асгардии может состоять в нескольких семейных парах в разных национальных государствах Земли.

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 14:35 UTC

Превосходно понимается текст Конституции теперь и на русском языке! Это главное-спасибо. По структуре и по содержанию проекта Документа есть одна сквозная проблема: как разделить в одном документе светское, военное, институциональное и социальное.... Надо понимать текст как весьма кратковременный черновой документ, необходимый к ДАТЕ. (?)

  Last edited by:  Vladimir Onoprienko (Asgardian, Candidate)  on May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 14:37 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: уточнение

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 15:25 UTC

I agree to pay taxes because that's normal. Who else will pay for all our future activities? But the taxes should be made conditional on the country of origin. We must show consideration for Asgardians from poor countries. And now to the different ages, I would like to be changed ::

Article 32.paragraph 6 :.....over the age of 30, Article 34.paragraph 3.:.....who have reached the Age of 40, Article 35.paragraph 4 : Ministers aged between 30 an 65.

I write these words, because in Austria we have a very popular Minister who is 30.

Much success and thank you for your hard working !

Brigitte Kreisl-Walch

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 15:51 UTC

@LeoBrazil

I have to wholheartedly disagree with you on the constitutional monarchy being one of the best forms of government. Let me illustrate using the example from my country, Australia.

Yes, citizens can elect representatives to parliament - tick. But that is about where the good ends.

There is no prerequisite for politicians to be proficient in a potrfolio to become Ministers. So, you end up with the rediculous situation where you can have an investment banker as the Minister for the Environment, a lawyer as the Minister for Health or a manager of public affairs being the Minister for Education. Ministers are selected on the basis of keeping political factions happy and rewarding loyalty. Merit very rarely is a consideration to appoint a minister.

Then you have the head of state - officially a 91 year old woman who lives 15,000km away. She has a representative in Australia (the Govenor General) who acts as the defacto head of state who (wait for it) is not appointed by the Queen,  but by the government! The position hold no real power though and is essentially a glorified ribbon cutter that is kept at the taxpayer's expense.

The best form of government doesn't exist yet. Mainly because no country has been brave enough to beak the status quo. This is why I am so disappointed with the draft constitution. There is a chance to create a newer and better democracy and many people have suggested very interesting and workable models. Instead, a system of government that first dates back to the Bronze Age has been proposed.

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 15:52 UTC

To clarify. 

Today, the ISS crews to live and work on a model of a real or practical communism (those who, because of cultural characteristics has a negative perception of the term "communism", please find a positive synonym). 

None of the crew members is not an employer or an employee to other members of the crew. All are skilled professionals, by default, performs a complex but interesting work and also by default provided with everything necessary for living and working - or the involvement of such professionals is not profitable, because does not allow to fully use their potential. Because of this security they perform a difficult job mainly because of internal psychological motivation. This model - the most worthy from the point of view of the person. 

(As noted in one of the articles by Boris Stern: "Why on Mars are not rogues, louts and fools? Because it is very difficult").

 First and foremost the Constitution should be answered that the purpose of activity - formation of such societies, "cosmic crew", in planetary significant scale, at least - is the asymptotic approximation to it. Everything else, including any bureaucratic procedures - just the deviation, the inevitable correction for the imperfection of real processes. 

The solution space of the task requires the appropriate type of society, not the reproduction of the archaic with some new technological add-ons.

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 15:53 UTC

To clarify. 

Today, the ISS crews to live and work on a model of a real or practical communism (those who, because of cultural characteristics has a negative perception of the term "communism", please find a positive synonym). 

None of the crew members is not an employer or an employee to other members of the crew. All are skilled professionals, by default, performs a complex but interesting work and also by default provided with everything necessary for living and working - or the involvement of such professionals is not profitable, because does not allow to fully use their potential. Because of this security they perform a difficult job mainly because of internal psychological motivation. This model - the most worthy from the point of view of the person. 

(As noted in one of the articles by Boris Stern: "Why on Mars are not rogues, louts and fools? Because it is very difficult").

 First and foremost the Constitution should be answered that the purpose of activity - formation of such societies, "cosmic crew", in planetary significant scale, at least - is the asymptotic approximation to it. Everything else, including any bureaucratic procedures - just the deviation, the inevitable correction for the imperfection of real processes. 

The solution space of the task requires the appropriate type of society, not the reproduction of the archaic with some new technological add-ons.

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 15:56 UTC

I have been going through the suggested revisions to the working draft of the Constitution, and I see big problem with the current Forum Variance for Article 34, Section 12c. Suggesting that Ministers should nominated by anyone unaffiliated with the field that they are supposed to lead is absurd. I would not want my painters deciding who leads engineering anymore than I would want my mechanics deciding who leads our artistic direction. If placed in the hands of the population, appointment should be limited to those working within that Ministry. As far as removal, I believe it should be proposed by either the Head of State, Parliament, Council, or Judiciary and then that removal should be voted on by the entire population. You could even have the Ministers voted in publically after they were nominees were brought forward by their peers.

That being said, the more things are opened up to public vote, the more inefficient the entire system becomes. You go from having a main government election once a year, to one every other month, or so, while still having to vote in regular local elections on ministry actions and local government propositions.

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 16:02 UTC

I would like some clarification regarding Section 5 of Article 13 of the Constitution:

"Asgardia's sovereign currency is issued by the National Bank in the amount tied to the ideal parameters of the Moon set by a special law of Asgardia."

What does it mean by saying the currency value is tied to lunar parameters? It sounds like Asgardia plans on asserting its sovereignty over the moon and using the net value of its minerals as the basis of the currency. Is this true, and if not, what does this actually mean?

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 16:20 UTC

@Skilfer I like your idea on those involved in certain fields being the ones to select the Ministers for that field, but it also raises some concerns. While this makes sense, in part, for those who have already established a career in a field, what about those who are still in University, or those who are in between jobs? In addition to this, I know plenty of Engineers (my particular field) who also have great interest in the arts, etc.

I think the second option you alluded to, where those in the Field would elect the nominees, but the general public would vote on all fields, is a better option due to the above concerns.

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 17:06 UTC

@bigred and @Scarbs
I'm obviously not feeling "betraied" 'cause Dr. Ashurbeily didn't listened to my oh-so-wonderful suggestions. ;-D
I'm feeling that way for two reasons, mainly:

  1. at the very first time all seems like candies and bells: the nice, smiling face of our Founding Father telling us we're "all equal", we'll be space citizens of a whole new nation in the space, all will be based on science, we've just to give our advices and we'll have all put together that magnificent new nation, set into the space... (and so on)

  2. then all gone forward, 99% behind the scenes, with fair new companies popping out like mushrooms, none of them with even nearly clear informations, all our fun-tas-tic advices seemingly trashed (as neither Document of Unity nor the Constitution seems to have retained any of them) and, last but not least, on these rock-solid bases we'll have to pay an undefinite amount of taxes (based on undefined criteria) and... listen!.. we're all equal BUT we'll have the incomparable pleasure to have A KING among us!

So... now... tell me who really have to have a serious check, if believing me or any other here was terribly wishing to sign such a white check? ;-))))

Just to say: one have all the rights, to make anything he prefers with his own things, this is the very base of private property. The only problem arise when he tries to do something with my things: at least I'm expected to read reasons enough to sign something which allows him doing that. ;-)
And remember: that constitutional document will be binding for L3 citizens, once approved.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

  Last edited by:  Luca Coianiz (Asgardian)  on May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 17:11 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: paragraph added

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 17:15 UTC

@Dmitry Novoseltsev  +1

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 17:17 UTC

@Elwe Thor(Asgardian) on 23 May 2017, 5:06 p.m.

If you should be so brave and interested, perhaps you can help me with building a democratic Technocracy?
https://github.com/lorezyra/Asgardia.Government/blob/master/Asgardia.Constitution.Proposal.txt

I see no value in sitting on the keyboard while we have time to write a new Constitution.

May 23, 17 / Can 03, 01 18:31 UTC

@LoreZyra
I'm absolutely not that brave at all... but I yet answered you here.
I'll try also not to sit on my keyboard, as I'm a little heavy. ;-)