@Elwe Thor(Asgardian) on 26 May 2017, 9:14 a.m.

It seems that, for some (unspeakable) reason, our Head of Nation is in hurry.

Why must we have everyone "agree" to the Constitution by June 18 (Gregorean calendar)? Simple. Because someone (Dr. I.A.) decided that we will be established as a nation on Asgard 1, 0001 (Asgard Calendar) ! Which translates to June 18, 2017 on the Gregorean calendar...

Do I agree with this arbitrary date?? Absolutely not! In fact, if it be so demanded to coincide with such date, then I would propose we wait until next year to have a proper debate, sort out the details, and finalize a proper constitution along with any other documents to establish our laws!

Seconded LoreZyra.

@ Scarbs ,

As I read your document this morning, I found myself asking where the "technocratic" parts of your proposal reside. You alluded to candidates that must have some qualifications, but your wording may it resemble that of a "technocratic democracy" rather than a technocracy. The differences between the two are found in the fundamental philosophy that in a Technocracy, government is seen as a an engineering challenge that should be solved by technically capable individuals. You system allows any citizen to become a President, Judicial officer, Citizen Legislature member, House of Reflection member, and  House of Delegates member with little or no system of vetting beyond a popular vote.

Even your "Technocratic Review" is little more than an audit process on bills that should occur in any fiscally-sound democracy. It reminds me of the CBO office in the United States.

Without reading if you have made changes since my last read, I might suggest that you study a bit more about the Forms of Government. I admit these topics are not easy, even for a "layman" such as myself.

@LoreZyra, 

I deliberately left the process of selection of Ministers up to a process set in law. If it is enshrined in the constitution, it may become too hard / slow to change if it becomes necessary.

I agree the model I've put together is not a true tecnocracy. It is also not a "conventional" democracy. It is intended as a hybrid of both. I've assummed that Asgardia would be populated by intelligent, scientifically literate citizens I realise now that this may be a stretch since it seems over 170, 000 have seemly added nothing to the discussions on the development of Asgardia.

FYI, the "technocratic part" occurs both at the Citizen Legislature (via the Ministry advisors involved in the comittees) and at the consideration of the vote in the House Reflection. The idea being that, in 90% of cases. by the time legislation reaches the House of Reflection any diferences between the will of the people and technical realities have been resolved and the House of Reflection acts as a house of review.

I hope that clarifies it a bit. I know what I have done is not perfect and it is a far from complete concept - simply because it is impossible for any one person (or group of people) to write a complete and agreeable state constitution in 10 days. It primarilly meant as a stimulus for discusion of alternate systems than a constitutional monarchy.

Bit of a long reply sorry, but here is my general thoughts on it;

Art 2 - morality feels a little ambiguous and I think is covered by fairness and equal dignity. As previously mentioned in the future we might have non human citizens, and also as a progressive society only trying to treat ourselves in this way seems a little narrow minded. If they (whoever they are) are willing to live on peace with us, we should constitutionally treat them fairly too. I also have a big issue with monarchy and think we would be better without kings or queens. I'd go as far as to suggest a governmentless form of government, but that's for a different post. Art 3. Same problem as above with only referencing humanity. Art 4. Supreme values sounds a little dictatory, might I suggest 'Primary Values' or 'Key Values' or 'Central Values' Point 3 - the whole humanity thing again. Point 4 b - all sentient life on earth should be protected. It could be argued all life on earth should be protected but then we get into fine and tricky details of protecting deadly viruses, since they are also life. Point is better wording is needed to cover what life we want to protect. Point 4 l - morality is too vague still, as mentioned before. Point 5 - what is the absolute supreme value? Point 7 - how far is a citizen supposed to go to protect these values? At what stage will they be found remiss in their duties if they fail to protect them because, for example, they were not willing to kill some threat to the value. Art 5 - as mentioned acquiring solid locations on earth, aside from embassy's, will be very difficult if not impossible. Floating platforms seem most likely. This aside it seems a little aggressive and insidious and would potentially put other countries on the defensive when reading this constitution. Current UN space law also prohibits any nation from laying claim to a celestial body (as far as I'm presently aware) Art 8. Point 10 - Restricting civil rights is dangerous without a state of emergency vote and a built in maximum time frame before restoration or a further vote for continuation. Art 9. Point 6 - is it going to be illegal not to vote? Point 8 - again, what is the actual obligation here, will we be expected to form a militia?Point 9 - this seems vague and unquantifiable. The point about paying legally established taxes covers the same meaning better as taxes can be changed by law later on and provide more clarity of what is required for each tax. Point 10 - no prisons is good, but are we against community service as an option for infractions? This makes it sound like the only penal option is revoking or limiting of citizenship. Art 10. Point 6 - this is as meaningless as the UK if a petition gets a certain number of signatures it must be discussed in Parliament. I would suggest changing it to 'the public must be offered a chance to vote on administrative decisions and this vote decide the policy taken' or remove this entirely. Art 11 - what is a human resource? Can I farm people? (So obviously not, but hopefully you can see why this needs clarifying) Point 4 - this must not limit people wishing to retrain into new skills or change profession. Point 5 - does this mean people will be restricted on things like drinking and smoking? Or playing computer games for 'too long' etc.. Art 13 point 2 - as others have said, Gor is a terrible name for a currency. Asgard Credit or Bit or Unit is much better. Simple but does the job. Point 5 - again already said but this makes no sense. Point 6 - donors to what? Asgardia? How will we be supporting these donors? What does this actually mean and does it need to be here at all? Point 9 - bank secrecy sounds a lot like 'tax haven' to me. Art 17 point 4 a - moral ideals, it's still very ambiguous and point b sums it up better I think. Point 5 - how does the state do this? What is deemed as important? Art 18 point 4 - this conflicts with previously mentioned freedom of speech and beliefs. Point 7 - humanism is a religious / social doctrine. Why are we adapting this as the national 'norm' after stating a are equal. Art 22 point 2 - how is citizen security ensured in asgardian territory?Point 5 - immoral is too ambiguous in the same way moral is. Point 6 - contains similar wording problems to point 5 Point 7 - this physically cannot be done as cyber attacks are possible. Asgardia could promise to not distribute or sell personal data or similar. Art 26 point 3 - if this moto wasn't voted on the whole humanity thing is an issue again. Point 5 - this is very nationalistic, disrespect is also too ambiguous. Art 28 point 4 - this is very difficult to actually enforce and so cannot really be called a capital.Maybe better redefined as Earth center of operations. Art 29 - maybe better reworded as 'Asgardian seeks to open embassies on all continents of the earth. Art 32 point 2 - pick a name and stick with it. No other head of state changes their name based on where they are. Point 4 - since we are living longer and longer having a maximum age seems a little needless if they are voted for. Point 5 - Candidates should be chosen by the people, or people should be able to put themselves forwards before a kind of primary where we can vote down to two parties for election into office. Point 6 - minimum age is also needless other than to set a minimum age of legal ability. Point 8 - this encourages nepotism and is a really bad idea. Point 11 - why is this different from any other asgardian, it breaks the core concept of equality for all citizens. Point 12 - all of these should be elected roles.

I agree with Elanexus regarding the "morality" principle, i already stated this could not work inside the constitutional bloc. Same thing, "disrespect" is dangerous inside a constitution. And Gor as a currency ? I think we touched the bottom. 

I don't know who is selecting the text for the constitution draft. But if i don't find any of Elanexus proposals nor any of my own taken into consideration, not only i'm out, but i'll label this project as undemocratic. 

To quote Cheyenne Voss:

"Hey all:) I've been giving the constitution a lot of t hought, and thought I'd ask-
Does anyone else here think that "less is more"?

I ask because in the 33 pages of this document, the litany of equality ("....based on race, gender, religion, nationality, etc) is used probably 10 different times, but failed to expressly forbid discrimination based on physical or mental ability. It would be a lot more prudent to say, ONCE, that one of the supreme values of Asgardia is "the equal dignity of all humans, without exception."

I ask because, though it's mentioned multiple times in the document, the procedure for "REFERENDUM" and it's relevance to the normal function of the government are completely neglected. In one instance it is referred to as a sort of public voing system (in regards to the adoption of this constitution) and in others it is referred to as a political action that can be initiated by both the government and private citizens.

I ask because there are a multitude of documents that the constitution provides legal levity for (Referendum, Decrees, Acts, Etc) but does not provide for an incidence where one document may directly conflict with another. Only the Constitution supercedes other legal documents- making it doubly important that the Constitution is as concise as possible.

I ask because, though this document is supposed to supercede all other law, only one sentence is provided on the process by which the constitution is ammended, using that very ambiguously defined word "referendum".

I ask because, though the constitution is the supreme authority on our government and how it will work, it delegates its authority to "the law." If a sentence says "by the law" and is not referring to the laws of international treatise or foreign residence, it doesn't belong in the constitution. Period. That's a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.

I ask because whomever authored this document managed to forget to outline the procedure by which Parliament actually adopts laws. You might assume it a forgone conclusion, but I would really like the Constitution to state "majority vote", "unanimous vote," "coin toss," .....It's kind of important we know the procedure being used before we vote on it.

In short, the longer a legal document is, the more likely it is to be seriously flawed. There are a lot of loopholes and oversights, and honestly I hope someone on the forum is also arguing a "less is more" approach for the next draft."

... "Cheyenne Voss ... I'm in the habit of assuming the best of intentions- particularly where asgardia is concerned. I Certainly have never built a country from the ground up, though from the little bit I did do here at the beginning I can tell you that it's an incredibly amount of work!
I also assume that the intentions behind this constitution were fairly well intentioned because there are a number of failsafe measures to prevent absolute despotism. For example, the Head of State can be accused of treason or dismissed on the grounds of failing health or gross violation of the supreme values of Asgardia. Also, the inclusion of a sort of council of values, or constitutional oversight committee, is really promising. I would like a lot of "fat" cut from the document, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's mostly air."

There were a few separate points in the first draft I found very troubling:

- The use of a get-out-of-jail-free term for "restricting" citizens rights, whilst abdicating any prison leaves me troubled. How far can these restrictions go? Where would be people be detained, even if temporarily, in the case of a violation of the law?

- The somewhat immediacy of citizen taxes whilst also seizing all earnings from business seems inappropriate in the short term. I myself am unable to fund any additional outgoings at the present time. With the threat of legal action, this becomes very worrisome.

- The guaranteeing of intellectual property implies similar standards to what exist in current setups. The distancing of these limitations was one of the main reasons for my signing up for Asgardian citizenship. Too many variations on how to connect a key to a keyboard exist as it is. People die because scientists wait for journals to publish their findings. Drug companies exploit essential medicines for extortionate prices. All because of intellectual property.

- The prohibition of potentially harmful information seems intentionally vague. This loophole could be exploited in much the same way as the Chinese firewall  "protects" its citizens from "harmful" information. Educational purposes (e.g. regarding the political climate) would also be banned by these rules. The filtering of information is just as dangerous as allowing a fully-fledged dictatorship.

- Robotics in war is akin to allowing nuclear weaponry, chemical warfare, and biological warfare. There have even been recent petitions to the UN to outright ban its usage before it becomes overly problematic. Back in the cold war, there were fears (and movies made around) of some general going rogue and ordering the first strike. With robotics, this nightmare becomes even more plausible as there are no "middle-men" to use their own consciences. This is not a risk I wish to even have a chance of happening.

- The burning of a flag is a means of protest, not a reason for punishment. Sure, we can have pride in Asgardia. That pride has to be taken with humility though, and stating that humility will not be tolerated can lead to dangerous places.

- The head of state being able to select their own judges is akin to the mafia doing the same thing. If a corrupt individual at the top so wished it, they could disrupt investigations and effectively bribe their way into remaining in power.

- Only allowing persons of older age into positions of power can easily misrepresent the people of younger generations. It is far easier for an older person to want things to be "how they used to be", whereas younger persons have no memory of this and may look forwards instead. Whereas the older persons bring experience to the table, younger persons bring ignorance. There are a lot of negative connotations about ignorance, but without it, questions aren't asked! Assumptions aren't challenged. Bad decisions are made. The mixture between the old and the new is important.

- The get-out clause for unlimited terms up to the age of 70 is concerning.

As things stand, I will be voting NO for this constitution. I concur with other sentiments regarding the timescales and importance of this document. Cheyenne Voss is also right in stating that the Constitution shouldn't nearly be this long. There are some amazing ideas in here, which could make for an excellent foundation. But as it stands it also contains gaping holes which can, indeed, turn this into a monarchic toy.

There are at least five issues that have been raised, that are obviously unacceptable (monarchy, poor checks-and-balances, unequal power distribution, corporation placing laws over 180k people, taxation). And within 10 days, these issues have captured the attention of the community.  However, even if AIRC addresses those issues by no means should AIRC have the right to claim that they have addressed all the concerns of the community.  The community was only given 10 days to digest the document, and has NOT been given enough time to consider the potentially very significant implications of other portions of the document.  

To quote Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws (1748), Book III.
Of the Principles of the Three Kinds of Government:

"2. Of the Principle of different Governments. I have already observed that it is the nature of a republican government that either the collective body of the people, or particular families, should be possessed of the supreme power; of a monarchy, that the prince should have this power, but in the execution of it should be directed by established laws; of a despotic government, that a single person should rule according to his own will and caprice. ...

3. Of the Principle of Democracy. There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue.
What I have here advanced is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of historians, and is extremely agreeable to the nature of things. For it is clear that in a monarchy, where he who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks himself above them, there is less need of virtue than in a popular government, where the person entrusted with the execution of the laws is sensible of his being subject to their direction.

Clear is it also that a monarch who, through bad advice or indolence, ceases to enforce the execution of the laws, may easily repair the evil; he has only to follow other advice; or to shake off this indolence. But when, in a popular government, there is a suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only from the corruption of the republic, the state is certainly undone."

The above text explains why monarchies are considered inferior to democracies. You can see these issues present in the current draft constitution: "in a monarchy, where he who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks himself above them" => Article 32. 11. "The Head of State enjoys immunity and is granted a lifetime guarantee of personal safety and the safety of his/her property a er leaving the role."

This draft constitution really is a monarchy, with all its well-known failings. We deserve better.

To quote Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws. Book XI. Of the Laws Which Establish Political Liberty, with Regard to the Constitution

"4. ... Democratic and aristocratic states are not in their own nature free. Political liberty is to be found only in moderate governments; and even in these it is not always found. It is there only when there is no abuse of power. But constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. Is it not strange, though true, to say that virtue itself has need of limits?

To prevent this abuse, it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power. A government may be so constituted, as no man shall be compelled to do things to which the law does not oblige him, nor forced to abstain from things which the law permits."
...

My point is that:  "constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go." -> this is why i cannot accept the powers granted to the head of state in the draft constitution.

@BohZao (/en/forum/member/profile/396697/) (Asgardian) on 26 May 2017, 11:58 a.m.
<<Man all the discussion with the Lena Answers is gone!!!>> 

I think it has never been in this forum. I have been reading the posts since the beginning and the only message I have ever seen from Lena is the very first one, starting the discussion. Maybe Lena's comments appeared just on Facebook.

I would suggest this to be corrected. I have detected, in many posts, some amount of frustration of never having answers or feed back from the core team of project Asgardia.

Also, I would really like to know if the vote on June 18 will be on the current draft of the Constitution or on some modified text to come. 

I have looked at Lore Zyra's proposal and I prefer it to the original draft. Now, should the discussion be on this new draft or on the old one?

@Andre Ratel(Asgardian) on 26 May 2017, 11:18 p.m.

I have looked at Lore Zyra's proposal and I prefer it to the original draft. Now, should the discussion be on this new draft or on the old one?

I invite you and everyone to discuss the points of my draft here:  Which Constitution would you want, if you had to choose today?

However, as Jason Rainbow mentions, this thread should focus on the draft presented by Asgardia.Space website.

@Andre Ratel
Translating what good Jason can't write here, we can post even a whole new Divine Comedy in a day, here, but discussions (and votations) will be about the current (so called) "draft": read it well as, if you'll vote "yes", that will be your Constitution.

@Jason Rainbow
Ahhh... Jason... Jason... are you so sure we, the users, don't know the meaning of "official thread"? (I'm not going further, so to avoid being caught OT... just thinking someone of us is being a little naive, not necessarily you)

@LoreZyra
"this thread" is the one and only (allowed) thread on "Constitution" topic: look at what happened. ;-)

@Jason Rainbow

While I understand where you're coming from about the official draft, I think it's clear from all of the responses in this forum that the "official" draft is in no state to be voted on, much less considered as a valid attempt at a constitution for a new state. 

I would recommend we redirect the efforts of those of us citizens who are actively participating towards petitioning the consideration of the draft put together by @LoreZyra and co, or a similarly well put together document. 

Just my two cents, 

BloodyClean