Dec 28, 16 / Cap 27, 00 18:50 UTC
The Most Important Question ¶
What is our constitution intended to uphold?
By this I mean what values do we hold dearest? What standards shall we use to judge our constitution's effectiveness? Before we can create an effective constitution, we must have a clear idea of what we intend it to do. A society that first values national strength and security will have a very different ideal constitution from a society that values freedom and intellectual growth above all else.
Unfortunately, any unified principles we currently have are those given out in Mr. Ashurbeyli's addresses, and these are general and vague compared to the standards required here. Peace, free information, and the protection of Earth are wonderful goals, but they are still goals. We must distill our collective understanding of Asgardia into defined principles. We must forge a unified philosophy to base our constitution off of. Without such a thing, anything we create will be fractured, incohesive, and fail.
On this forum there are already many discussions regarding specifics of the constitution. There are existing drafts. There are many discussing what type of government we should have. Democracy, republic, technocracy, even dictatorships all have their merits and failings. However, if we do not come to a consensus on what is important, then how will we be able to weigh these systems against each other? We will not! We will only be able to argue our personal views on a case by case basis. If we do this, then our decisions might contradict each other. Instead of moving towards one goal, we will move towards many and rip ourselves apart.
Now, of course there are many differing views and opinions here about a wide variety of subjects. We will all disagree about many things, and no foundational system could ever satisfy everyone. Yet we must do our best to compromise and select one. We must argue our philosophical differences out at the beginning. We must acknowledge our disagreements and put them aside for unity as best we can. Then, our future discussions will be about the best way to accomplish our goals rather then endlessly arguing the goals themselves all the way to the document's signing.
This will not be a quick, nor easy process. In my view, it should take at least as long as all other constitutional work combined. But it is necessary. We cannot build an entire nation's foundation by arguing in different directions the entire time.
I do not intend to have this discussion in this post. Instead, I would like to discuss the merits of this view here. Do we need to base a constitution on a unified foundation? Is the information we currently have enough to work with? How could we effectively begin, let alone finish this task?