Jan 12, 17 / Aqu 12, 01 21:07 UTC
Jan 18, 17 / Aqu 18, 01 18:59 UTC
Hello Mr. Gittins, Thank you for all your work on this document so far, it is truly a wonderful combination of some of the greatest societal ideas put forth by some of the most wonderful intellectuals of our time and in the time previous to ours. As to the content itself, while I am no philosopher or psychologist, It seems you have come up with a handbook for an Utopian Society. While the document still needs some polishing and clarifications, the core concept, brings forward the idea and lays out the way in which true equality can be achieved. IMHO, with this Document as a guide, it seems the idea of a utopia within our new nation is possible. we must accept that we ourselves are flawed and our perceptions of the universe are no more correct than any other perception of another "cybernetic system", thus allowing us to let go of ego and work towards a greater good for all. While I can not speak for the Founder of Asgardia, I would think that this document is similar to his thoughts and feelings as to how our Nation must treat one another. If we are to create a place free of struggle in any form, communication is the only way. I believe that Communication is the main concept of this entire piece, without it, nothing more complex than despotism is possible. If I can be of any help in furthering this document, I would be happy to lend assistance. but I am sadly not well versed in philosophy or legalese. I would suggest though that instead of this document becoming the foundations for the constitution going forward, that it be considered along with the constitution as a separate but equally important document. One that outlines the nation's societal guidelines, the way we can achieve a utopian lifestyle and live in harmony with one another. It captures the core concept of Igor Ashurbeyli's "One Humanity. One Unity"
Jan 18, 17 / Aqu 18, 01 21:25 UTC
You put in a great deal of time penning this document, great format and penmanship. However this is not a constitution. This is more along the lines a religious decree rather than rules for government. It is strictly agenda driven, with personal ideology, ignoring the individuals rights to freedom and thought. In a healthy society it is not the government's duty to control ones thinking process. It is only the duty of government to protect the rights of free thought.
Though there may be some constructive approaches in your document, it however borders on being more of a religious manifesto. Please don't take offense to my feedback. It is genuine.
Jan 21, 17 / Aqu 21, 01 09:05 UTC
Jan 21, 17 / Aqu 21, 01 09:14 UTC
Jan 23, 17 / Aqu 23, 01 05:22 UTC
I think a constitution should primarily be a structural documents defining the powers of offices and the power relations between those offices and the citizens. A moral document can never be universal.
Jan 23, 17 / Aqu 23, 01 21:26 UTC
Jan 24, 17 / Aqu 24, 01 06:19 UTC
Why does a constitution define the powers of offices and the power relations between those offices and the citizens? For what reason?
That is the very definition of a constitution. It is a legal document that details the structure of a government, including the scope and powers and the means by which they are granted and executed. The purpose of government is to organize the accomplishment of tasks that individuals are unable to do alone, if you want to get philosophical.
Are you saying that an [moral] document can never be universal?
Morality is a function of intelligent subjects and therefore subjective. We can discuss the idea of an absolute morality, but in practice every culture, even every subculture, has a different and unique moral attitude and moral values system for distinguishing between right and wrong. One of the goals of Asgardia is to be universalist. This can not be achieved without pluralism, the valuing of other ideologies, belief systems, and cultures for the sake of being different. A moral constitution is inherently exclusionary. It creates a legal distinction between one subjective values system and all others (this is very Hobbesian). Fundamentally, an attempt to prevent all humans from fearing all other humans can not be constructed from codifying and enforcing any particular moral system with the force of a government.