Leo 18, 01 / Jul 5, 17 16:10 UTC

Re: I do NOT accept the Constitution  

Consulta, ¿alguien sabe si es posible votar en contra o desacuerdo con la constitución?.
En particular estoy en desacuerdo que constitucionalmente se establezca el secreto bancario. Conociendo los manejos y desmanejos de las empresas, fundaciones y personas en la tierra eso deja abierta la puerta para la corrupción y/o enriquecimiento ilícito.
Me gustaría poder explicitar mi opinión , y/o hacersela llegar a quienes redactaron la constitución.

---------

Consultation, someone knows if it is possible to vote against or disagree with the constitution?
In particular I disagree that constitutionally banking secrecy is established. Knowing the management and mismanagement of companies, foundations and people on the ground that leaves the door open for corruption and / or illicit enrichment.
I would like to be able to state my opinion, and / or make it known to those who wrote the constitution.



Leo 19, 01 / Jul 6, 17 18:26 UTC

I agree with Estropistei.

We should build the Constitution together, using online writing and project management collaboration tools.

Until then, I will not accept the constitution.

Regards


P.S.

I invite all the people not accepting the constitution to send me a PVT message, we could create a group and petition to write the constitution together.

Leo 19, 01 / Jul 6, 17 18:36 UTC

Yeah, dude, there is no private messaging system on these forums.

All attempts at linking to outside methods of communicating get censored.

So, unless people want to search for unique usernames, or share their emails here, we are not being allowed to communicate how to communicate outside these forums.

JPK

Leo 19, 01 / Jul 6, 17 19:11 UTC

C'mon. Censored? Did it happened to you?

Leo 19, 01 / Jul 6, 17 19:32 UTC

At least twice in the past few months, to me, yes.

PFE

  Updated  on Leo 19, 01 / Jul 6, 17 19:33 UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Leo 20, 01 / Jul 7, 17 13:46 UTC

@Jason Rainbow

thank you for answer. I understand this messages could be off topic, but are of vital importance, and ... considering we want all to collaborate for the constitution it;s good if we understand how we can work together, what communication channels we can use.

there are a lot of patterns we can follow to design the Constitution, one of this way can rely on the forum, but it will be very dispersive, it's not like sitting in front of a round table... the forum software is not designed for collaboration but for top - down discussion.

there are many collaboration tools instead, that will allow us to work in a more effective way, for any of the projects.

I am a software designer and developer. I can help.

I will start a post soon to introduce some of the free collaboration and project management I know. Hopefully we will be able together to choose the good one for us.

Until then, if you or any reader interested in similar approches - drop an email to mihaiasumcinei@gmail.com

Best Regards

Michael Asumcinei


Leo 20, 01 / Jul 7, 17 14:57 UTC

@Jason Rainbow
Sorry me if I use this thread (I could use every other one, but still being OT) to suggest a method to (hopefully better handle comments, moderations and OTs, while avoiding to clutter the original thread, and knowing the forum lacks the PM feature.
This means that, instead of explaining the method here, I'll do that there...

Leo 24, 01 / Jul 11, 17 12:58 UTC

I agree that there shouldn't be any reference to Kingdom.  Also a veiled reference to nominate 'by genealogy' Heads of Nation is particularly disturbing.  There also should not be a way for the Head of Nation to dissolve Parliament without a vote of citizens.

Leo 25, 01 / Jul 12, 17 23:57 UTC

I agree. I do not accept this constitution

Leo 26, 01 / Jul 13, 17 12:10 UTC

'Fourthly, I do not agree with the implementation of a set number of official languages, nor do I agree to strive for the construction and implementation of a single Asgardian language. I know acknowledging all languages as culturally relevant can be a strain on resources as a greater number of translators would be needed to cope with the diversity influx. I still believe it is important to protect cultural diversity over administrative pragmatism.'

Correct... I do not understand on what grounds some languages have been already preferred above others on this platform alone, let alone later on in Asgardia itself... This alone provides the first seeds of injustice and non-equality among its members...There should even be the option, on these or other grounds to vote against the constitution or provide amendments apart from this forum perhaps... 

Leo 26, 01 / Jul 13, 17 12:10 UTC

'Fourthly, I do not agree with the implementation of a set number of official languages, nor do I agree to strive for the construction and implementation of a single Asgardian language. I know acknowledging all languages as culturally relevant can be a strain on resources as a greater number of translators would be needed to cope with the diversity influx. I still believe it is important to protect cultural diversity over administrative pragmatism.'

Correct... I do not understand on what grounds some languages have been already preferred above others on this platform alone, let alone later on in Asgardia itself... This alone provides the first seeds of injustice and non-equality among its members...There should even be the option, on these or other grounds to vote against the constitution or provide amendments apart from this forum perhaps... 

Leo 26, 01 / Jul 13, 17 15:43 UTC

I believe the language preferences were made due to population, to get the 'message' out to the greatest number of people in the shortest period of time.

Would you rather they not distribute any information until it is translated into the thousands of languages there are on the Earth at present?

OGJ

Vir 00, 01 / Jul 15, 17 21:01 UTC

I've only gotten about half way through the document but right off the bat some SERIOUS red flags went up. First one being I saw no protections or even mention in the "Supreme Values" about protecting peoples Sexual or Gender preferences. Which in 2017 should be as much of a np brainer as Freedom of Religion. Not even going to CONSIDER agreeing to anything that doesnt wholeheartedly support and protect peoples natural right to exsist as themselves. 

The other was what little I read on Taxation, while yes if I'm WORKING IN or FOR Asgardia I would agree to their taxation methods for (and only for) the work I did pertaining to THEM, I have no intentions of allowing myself to be taxed for work that has nothing to do with them whatsoever. If I have to put up with the recist/predjudiced/ closed minded views of companies/ corporations on earth, I am AT LEAST keeping the money they pay me as a suffrage allotment. So no to that much. 


Vir 01, 01 / Jul 16, 17 15:28 UTC

I reject because, duh.

The very content and process of adoption of this Constituion completely contradict the stated intent of the formation of the "kingdom".

I call on all true free-thinking rationalists to recuse themselves from this ego trip and embark on a true vision for humanity--perhaps not named for a stupid mythical kingdom of asshole gods with a hall reserved for those who die in battle? Maybe something original?

Vir 01, 01 / Jul 16, 17 18:41 UTC

I think, in their own language, I_quit_silly_kingdom made a good point in the naming of "asgardia".

  Last edited by:  ekwaynal (Asgardian)  on Vir 01, 01 / Jul 16, 17 18:42 UTC, edited 1 time in total.