Hi there!

As the Unified Voting Day approaches I wonder if we shouldn't hear from Dr. Ashurbeyli or someone else indicated by him about the Constitution he proposed and generally about the voting system we adopted.

Many questions have been raised about several topics, including the monarchy system, taxes, etc. I suppose we are getting a revised version before the voting day but in the end, we are going to make a yes/no choice and even the implications are not clear.

Discussing among ourselves is great, but some insight from the one who proposes the constitution would be of great value. Why a monarchy? Why are we voting yes/no to a full constitution instead of choosing a government system first and building from there? How does an aerospace fleet protect the earth? Why are the candidates to the position of Head of Nation not chosen democratically? Why is 40 to 65 the appropriate age range for the parliament? etc, etc.. you want us to support some strange choices and you don't care to tell us why we should.

According to the voting regulations: "Those who vote in support of the Declaration of Unity of Asgardia and the Constitution of Asgardia will pass on the third level of certification and receive the right for an Asgardia ID card. In the case of disagreement with the Declaration of Unity of Asgardia and the Constitution of Asgardia, the individual will remain on the second level of verification." while the Declaration of Unity states that citizens must accept but the declaration and the constitution. Why are those strings attached? I suppose that those Asgardians who vote "no" will be later given a chance to accept the Constitution if it is approved but why isn't it stated there and why aren't the procedures in case it is not approved explained in the same place?

Best,

Roberto

I suspect it's not about voter approval or not. It's about if you will go along with Ashurbeyli's program. The only way into citizenship is with a yes vote and I expect little to nothing will change in the final draft of the Constitution. The country will form with who ever votes yes and proceed with A's vision and leadership.

The wording indicates to me that this is a program on rails without deviations for our input, only our assent to participate.

@zygrunt(Asgardian) on 2 June 2017, midnight

Many of us share your concerns. Myself included. As I understand it, Dr. I. Ashurbeyli does not have a forum profile nor has he ever written directly to any specific person on FB or this forum. However, @Lena De Winne does respond on the behalf of the good Doctor. She is ( in her own words: ) " the CEO and Vice-President of NGO Asgardia. I am the only person at this point who talks officially on behalf of Dr. Ashurbeyli to media and public. I am a director at AIRC - you can find it at airc.at ..." As a few have done in the past, you can direct your enquiries towards her. However, representatives from Asgardia.Civic have attempted to respond to community questions: An Open Letter on the Asgardian Constitution .

I don't recall who mentioned it, but I read there is supposedly a video with someone explaining the reasons to support a Constitutional Monarchy for Asgardia. I have not found this video. However, on the face of it, a Monarchy is the easiest transition from CEO to King (or HoS). When you observe the governance of business, you quickly see how the CEO is effectively the Dictator of the group. Everything is water-fall style of management. The business will either thrive or cease based on the policies set out by the CEO. The Ministry Heads could be analogous to the board of directors.

From the view-point of the  Space Treaty of 1967, there are but a couple of options available to putting people in space. As an established and recognized Nation, we would be permitted. But for a company (like AIRC), it would be rather difficult. So, I can see the logic behind starting up Asgardia. Even if it has some curious ideas based in Nordic mythology. 

Within this forum, there have been discussions on : type of government,  What is the type of governement that you want? (poll), and  What is the currency what you want for asgardia? There have been active discussions and requests to the community for input in this process since December 2016. (Unfortunately, I didn't become active here until mid-February 2017.) As @bigred has mentioned, "you only need to ask him..." referring to getting feedback from the good Doctor. [ Email: director@airc.at ]

Regarding taxes, I can understand how many feel oppressed by their liability of Tax within their own countries. However, all proposed Constitutions have a clause about tax and none of them are explicit in how such taxes will be graded and collected. They all simply state the regulations on tax will be defined by law... And as that law must be formulated at some later point by fellow Asgardians (who probably share your concern about taxes), there should be no need to feel outraged or disgusted. Many people pay for online services and local club (dues)... And, yet they don't complain about having to pay such "taxes." Everyone pays into a system that will eventually, if not directly, benefit them and their fellow Asgardians. As an American living in Japan, I'm well aware of the burdens of Taxes. The US system taxes its Citizenry on all global income. This includes everything earned here in Japan. It doesn't matter that I also must pay taxes to Japan. However, some of that is mitigated by the federal laws where you can claim an exemption (upto a certain point). When the rules surrounding taxes are drawn up, the community must insist that similar laws be drawn up. Such that you are not forced to pay while not deployed in Space or within Asgardia territory. 

Regarding the Voting Regulations, I agree that we should have information for the consequences where no simple majority is in favor of the Constitution. As it currently stands, third-level (class) of Asgardian Citizenship would enable your "right" to be deployed/employed in Outer Space. The obvious implication for second-level citizens is they would be limited to this forum and Earth... That aside, it may very well be an assumption that all will simply (or blindly) accept the terms and conditions to remain a part of this concept. Much the way many simply ignore the EULA included with all software installations... And, we have no true transparency into the voting system. It's not that hard to proclaim everyone agrees regardless of the actual results. But then, I really don't know...

Counter Point: Regardless of the form of governance chosen by Asgardia, you could view Asgardia as a space business and decide if you want the option to visit Space as an Asgardian (employee). From that view-point, it's not that hard to accept the company regulations (constitution). After all, if you don't like your job/position, then you can simply leave. (right?)

@LoreZyra That email address you published for the AIRC has nothing to do with Asgardia so please be advised that all inquiries about Asgardia will not be answered through that email. There are email addresses for all types of inquiries listed on the Asgardia website that can be used to request information.

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Rebekah Berg
Head of Community Affairs
NGO Asgardia

Thanks for the replies.

thymeless: that's exactly what it looks like. I actually don't have a big issue with that as much as I have with the lack of transparency.

LoreZyra: I just mentioned some questions I've seen being raised. Unfortunately, there is a lack of clarity in the process that makes me feel that our opinions don't count for anything. Even if that draft presented the perfect constitution, this silence would be putting me off. It feels like this "operation" needs a number of names attached to it and that's why we were all invited. If that's not the case, they've been doing a terrible job communicating what they really want. A video like the one you mentioned would go a long way for clarifying things. 

@zygrunt  I'm late to the party because I got crazy busy at work and am only just now reading the Constitution (meaning I missed the feedback period, which sucks). The Constitutional Monarchy doesn't feel entirely comfortable but I can see how it would make the most sense initially. It's much easier to have one or two leaders with advisors to coordinate things and keep efforts focused, rather than try to start out with a "rule by committee" approach, which would only result in lots of things not getting done. 

It's a bit like how if you go to a community meeting where everyone gets to speak for however long they want and the moderator isn't very disciplined, you get 50 people rambling on for 20 minutes each and by the end of it nobody knows what their point was or what the point of the meeting was and absolutely nothing gets accomplished.

I personally would be more comfortable if a clause was added that gradually phases out the Constitutional Monarchy, allowing for a transition into a direct or representative democracy with a directly elected Head of State (not chosen by governing bodies but by Asgardians directly) once certain conditions are achieved. Right now, the Head of State has a lot of power and seemingly few restrictions and that makes sense if he (or she) is trying to build a nation from scratch. We're in kinda uncharted waters here and this will work better with one primary decision maker for the early stages until things are a bit more established. Aside from this issue, the minimum age requirements being much too old for no good reason (I'd like to see the age dropped down to 30), and a lack of detail in some other areas (how are we defining "moral" exactly? What do we mean by "immunity?"), I think the Constitution looks pretty reasonable for what it is. It can always be amended later if something isn't working.

Taxation will always be somewhat conflictive we must understand that an individual can not be forced to submit to a tax without first seeing its benefits, I understand that there must be support for the future infrastructure of asgardia but must realize that they should always be done under Will of the citizen (everyone remembers how collecting tax the monarchic systems .. and did not finish anything well .. historically speaking)

I just finished reading the draft constitution and I think that there are many Articles or sub catergories that either need be to revised, clarified, or just thrown out altogether. A constitutional monarchy is also not an idea I can get behind considering the ridiculous amount of power the HoS possesses in said constitution.