Leo 20, 01 / Jul 7, 17 19:27 UTC

Re: **Discussion** on Asgardia Constitution  

That is completely understandable. I don't have much to loose right now tho nor do I see cow could I end up in a lawsuit here + I can always choose to abandon my citizenship or just become a resident. So it's up to each person whether they feel the risk is worth it or not. What makes me feel a little better is a strong suspicion that the constitution wasn't written so badly out of sinister motivations but out of pure stupidity. 

Leo 20, 01 / Jul 7, 17 21:28 UTC

@Kristina Gasparian

"What makes me feel a little better is a strong suspicion that the constitution wasn't written so badly out of sinister motivations but out of pure stupidity."

I don't know which is worse...

Leo 20, 01 / Jul 7, 17 21:41 UTC

Stupidity.

At least sinister motive you can feel righteous about.

JXI

Leo 20, 01 / Jul 7, 17 21:45 UTC

Honestly both ca be dangerous but in this case stupidity is better because I don't think anyone wrote this badly on purpose to later take advantage of it and screw citizens on purpose. However I see some bias there that could be purposeful, for example this constitution allows communism - it's not listed as banned along with fascism and racism etc. I bet some uneducated american extreme liberal made sure to keep things this way... which is very scary to someone from post-communistic country. x.x

  Last edited by:  Kristina Gasparian (Asgardian, Candidate)  on Leo 20, 01 / Jul 7, 17 21:47 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Leo 24, 01 / Jul 11, 17 13:54 UTC

The constitution draft is not acceptable in any way. This clearly place a monarchy/dictatorship government. 

Leo 24, 01 / Jul 11, 17 14:32 UTC

Having plowed through the constitution, and this whole thread, I fear for humanity. There is way too much legalese involved, and that alone is why sooo many people arent interested. A national bank? them right there is the reason the world is so borked, along with lawyers and politicians. Because friends in high places.... So what to do about it. Its rather clear the "constitution" is a foregone (sp?) conclusion, whether anyone other than the writers like it or not. In conclusion, welcome to earth politics 21st century, moved to space. I havent accepted this constitution, and nor will I. But I wont be pulling out just yet, will keep lurking as Im sure many others do, in the hopes of seeing some sort of change.

oh, and regarding the writing, and some of the clauses wrt business, leads me to believe that this was written with ulterior motives in mind, washed a a veneer of "one for all" to make it a bit more palatable. To be expected I guess, the cream rises to the top *cough

  Last edited by:  James Bestbier (Asgardian)  on Leo 24, 01 / Jul 11, 17 14:34 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Leo 24, 01 / Jul 11, 17 15:28 UTC

One may argue that, for 169 people who, at the moment, signed @lorditerator's petition, there are 74.785 who accepted the Constitutional draft... but... let's see how much forum's posts have written, those 74k citizens, at all (and, as we're here, how much of them even read the Constitutional draft they accepted).
(still, after nearly a month, 28,06% of the registered users voted: 50% is expected to be reached, if not using fake IDs, for 2020)

Leo 25, 01 / Jul 12, 17 15:02 UTC

@John A Covert
The Constitution, though, is perfectly structured to keep Dr. Ashurbeyli or his designates in control. There are flaws, but the push is on. I feel less and less confident that those flaws will be fine-tuned after the ratification is declared.

Exactly the same way it's "unprobable" to fix a building's fundations, after it have been built up to the roof.
I laugh, reading people is confident "to fix the Constitution later", after accepting it without caring: the Constitution is there to remain, and you won't "fix" it in any easy way, that for sure.

Vir 01, 01 / Jul 16, 17 07:38 UTC

I apologize if there is another thread that covers the below topics. Here are a few of the questions/thoughts I had from the constitution.

"The creation of prisons is prohibited in Asgardia." There is a criminal court, but no prison? Currently not an issue, but in the future it seems rather short sighted to think no one will ever need to be detained. 'We find you guilty of murder. you are sentence to.... stay in your room for 20 years'??? Does this also mean brigs are prohibited?

"Asgardia shall create and store in low-Earth orbit and on celestial bodies a Databank of biological materials from the Earth." Why low earth orbit (LEO)? Because it's cheaper? How about GEO instead? Or even MEO? 

What does it take to change the constitution? I see who can propose an amendment, but then what? Is there a time frame? Does it have to be published somewhere? Is it simple majority wins? If so is it a majority of the citizens or a majority of those that vote? 

"Asgardia’s security doctrine is exclusively peaceful and self-protective in its nature." Exclusively peaceful security? Like we lock our doors, but if someone makes it past that we do nothing?

"The Head of Nation may dissolve the Parliament." No. Just No. Veto sure. Fire someone maybe. Do something temporary/limited without Parliaments input ok. dissolve parliament, NO. 

secure environment. Is there anymore information on this? I'm just curious.

Robert

Vir 01, 01 / Jul 16, 17 23:17 UTC

I will have to wait for things to happen. It has become apparent to me that words on paper can be meaningless to the current way things are happening. In my country, we have numerous laws which are legal under one interpretation and not under another. The dominating culture controls the interpretation. The Asgard Constitution provides for easy citizenship renouncement, and a relative assurance of no prisons or forced confinement. I suppose the real issue is if you can accept the taxes...and if you don''t, I suspect that eventually you won't be a citizen anymore as it appears that there will be no punishment outside of fines or rationing. 


Sure, I don't like appointed officials, but meh. I can live with it. My real concern is that wealth privilege will be continued and there will be families/groups which are virtually guaranteed positions which they are not merited. Hopefully the Equal Opportunity Clause is strong enough and recognizes that equal access is required.

Vir 04, 01 / Jul 19, 17 10:50 UTC

I think an official poll should be cast by leadership even if 100K sign as that's still less than 50%. 

I would guess that a large number of people simply didn't read the constitution but just accepted due to the way it was presented. I personally have been off the site for quite some time and didn't release what was happening. I had 30minutes left of yesterday to read it and it took me a good two hours, so technically my vote was late and shouldn't be counted. I only voted because I felt, pressured to make a decision of accepting and remain a citizen and therefore continue a right to question the areas I didn't like and leave later if nothing happens, or not sign and potentially be cast out. This isn't the correct way to hold a vote and clearly, after spending 12 hours on the site since I logged in, many, many users are unhappy with some parts of the final draft. 

I really do hope that draft means a draft, and this is like round one of the votings on this extremely important document. Personally, I am extremely unhappy with the wording of Kingdom, I'd never seen it before until this document and I am very worried that it will mean we're all subjects instead of citizens! For now, I can only watch this space and hope, but if that word kingdom is not removed. I will renounce my citizenship, before, I am renouncing my servitude as a subject.

  Updated  on Vir 04, 01 / Jul 19, 17 10:51 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Vir 04, 01 / Jul 19, 17 14:31 UTC

With regards to Article 18. Equality of Dignity for All

§4)Propaganda of superiority and inequality is prohibited. Asgardia prohibits racist, Nazi, fascist and other similar ideologies in their historical and new forms.” 

I agree with previous statements, that it could lead down a "slippery slope" and be utilised to rebuff criticisms of the State (or Kingdom - a term I strongly disagree with). Aside from it being a conflict with the “freedom of speech” (Chapter 3, Article 8§4a), I fear that prescriptively and specifically identifying (by name) only right wing ideologies will present problems. There are issues with all ideologies when taken to their extreme or corrupted to suit the needs of a few. Communism, in its numerous flawed applications, has proven just as dangerous as Nazism. Being too specific about the ideologies that we will "prohibit" will  only present problems. I don't know the answer, but the wording as it stands must be changed.

Vir 04, 01 / Jul 19, 17 14:31 UTC

With regards to Article 18. Equality of Dignity for All

§4)Propaganda of superiority and inequality is prohibited. Asgardia prohibits racist, Nazi, fascist and other similar ideologies in their historical and new forms.” 

I agree with previous statements, that it could lead down a "slippery slope" and be utilised to rebuff criticisms of the State (or Kingdom - a term I strongly disagree with). Aside from it being a conflict with the “freedom of speech” (Chapter 3, Article 8§4a), I fear that prescriptively and specifically identifying (by name) only right wing ideologies will present problems. There are issues with all ideologies when taken to their extreme or corrupted to suit the needs of a few. Communism, in its numerous flawed applications, has proven just as dangerous as Nazism. Being too specific about the ideologies that we will "prohibit" will  only present problems. I don't know the answer, but the wording as it stands must be changed.

Vir 04, 01 / Jul 19, 17 14:33 UTC

With regards to Article 18. Equality of Dignity for All

§4)Propaganda of superiority and inequality is prohibited. Asgardia prohibits racist, Nazi, fascist and other similar ideologies in their historical and new forms.” 

I agree with previous statements, that it could lead down a "slippery slope" and be utilised to rebuff criticisms of the State (or Kingdom - a term I strongly disagree with). Aside from it being a conflict with the “freedom of speech” (Chapter 3, Article 8§4a), I fear that prescriptively and specifically identifying (by name) only right wing ideologies will present problems. There are issues with all ideologies when taken to their extreme or corrupted to suit the needs of a few. Communism, in its numerous flawed applications, has proven just as dangerous as Nazism. Being too specific about the ideologies that we will "prohibit" will  only present problems. I don't know the answer, but the wording as it stands must be changed.

Vir 04, 01 / Jul 19, 17 15:15 UTC

@SpiritualOne
I think an official poll should be cast by leadership even if 100K sign as that's still less than 50%.

They won't do that, stating that their "poll" is the voting by itself, whatever misleading method are they using to make people accepting their EULA-kind of Constitutional draft. If they follow your (correct) advice, numbers will paint them as the scammers(1) they really are... and, even if obvious, they don't like it.

I would guess that a large number of people simply didn't read the constitution but just accepted due to the way it was presented. I personally have been off the site for quite some time and didn't release what was happening. I had 30minutes left of yesterday to read it and it took me a good two hours, so technically my vote was late and shouldn't be counted. I only voted because I felt, pressured to make a decision of accepting and remain a citizen and therefore continue a right to question the areas I didn't like and leave later if nothing happens, or not sign and potentially be cast out. This isn't the correct way to hold a vote and clearly, after spending 12 hours on the site since I logged in, many, many users are unhappy with some parts of the final draft.

Keep in mind that, at the moment, with the voting process still (illegally) open, you're a "certified user" (L2) like me (I've not accepted the EULA). To be a citizen, whatever meaning that definition can have for a non recognized nation, the voting process must end and the results officially declared.

There is another "legal detail" they're unaware or have just bypassed, 'cause the whole process have been (we think "on purpose") very amateurial: to legally enact a Constitution, one have to be a citizen to vote for it (this process is named "Constituent Assembly") so, a "prior law" must exist to state that you, at the moment you have to vote for the Constitutional draft, have the "legal right" to vote (being a citizen gives you that right).
That "prior law" can't stay into a document(2) which still have no legal value, not having been approved so, in the total lack of a decree's article stating that (and it's a need, to have such writing, or Const. art. 9 par. 42 have not been written at all), all we are still "users": our vote is null in any case.

Last but not least, even if it's true that, as users (guests), we have no rights (even if the Code of Conduct have been written: they infringe their laws so they can do the same with the CoC also) and can be removed in any moment without notice or even the need their behaviour being explained, we're anyway "numbers" in the grandtotal: banning us won't help them at all.

I really do hope that draft means a draft, and this is like round one of the votings on this extremely important document. Personally, I am extremely unhappy with the wording of Kingdom, I'd never seen it before until this document and I am very worried that it will mean we're all subjects instead of citizens! For now, I can only watch this space and hope, but if that word kingdom is not removed. I will renounce my citizenship, before, I am renouncing my servitude as a subject.

They call it "a Constitution", not "a draft": we, the "rebels" (LOL), are the only ones who call it "a draft" as it is but, after the voting period will end, they'll have an "approved Constitution" (still a draft ;-)))
After the Constitutional draft will be "approved" (read the illegal approving procedure above), you, the acceptors, will be citizens and subjects at the same time: citizens of Asgardia's space kingdom, and king's subjects.
This, anyway, won't be legally binding(3) until you won't board the very first space habitat/colony. So it's not an immediate problem.

(1) "scammers" in the way, having Asgardia no legal rules (as it's not a nation at the moment, so can't enact proper laws), the same its having Head of Nation's decrees (look at them as "internal rules", the same as the forum's Code of Conduct) which they're anyway infringing in multiple ways.

(2) Constitutional draft, art. 9 par. 42: "These persons are considered Asgardian citizens on a preferential basis prior to the adoption of the law on space citizenship of Asgardia"

(3) As, residing you into an Earth country, your country's laws have the legal precedence on Asgardia's ones.