@skieswanne
Don't forget, to the other side, that "Nation" and "State" have different meanings. That's, by the way, the reason why, in the original draft, the Head of Nation (current) will drop his title becoming Head of State (after constitutional vote).

@LoreZyra
I understand that problem way too much well: we had a Trump-like Prime Minister for nearly 20 years. 'Cause of the reasons you explained so well, Italy have been at one step from default. I greatly hope this won't be the case for USA, now that you have your own Berlusconi.

@bloodyclean, @thor - yep we can always depend on corruption being drawn to positions of power. Actually I agree with the basis of why you feel complete direct democracy  becomes unworkable.  I have a purely pessimistic view of our abilities within the current societal structure on earth.

I feel that until we get rid of the notion of "positions of power" and find a way to at least begin controlling our feeling of "my ideas are the only way"  any new society will end up back where we are now.

@bloodyclean yes it is one of the base elements of communism, which does require an ideal world to exist without hurting anyone. But then so does democracy.

@thor I understand the fact that I couldn't at this point be a life support engineer.   However think carefully..... any society that is a state without territory or wants to go live in space is NEVER going to be anything like the society you seem to envisage.  It just is not going to be like star wars with people living day to day lives exactly like their current lives.  For a very very very very very long time (probably hundreds if not thousands of years) most effort and time will be spent in survival.  That is the case whether it is on earth as a state without territory or in space.  Everybody in that society must by definition have a much higher education and understanding of what they are doing than what we are teaching on earth today.  The circumstances are just vastly different to what you are describing. The two situations are a universe apart (pun intended).  

That type of society MUST rely on everybody participating and having a high degree of situational and environmental knowledge. This means some of the points you canvased are predefined.  For example if you are living in space you MUST have a very good understanding of life support systems.  Right now every astronaut who goes into space is given training in life support systems. Do you think it will be any different for future people living in space?

At the beginning of any society, such as Asgardia is trying to become, all governance will be technocratic and dictatorial. It is the nature of a situation where someone who already has money, influence and some degree of ego comes up with and pushes forward with an idea they have nurtured.  They will be the "owner" of all created property and the idea. They will have complete control.  However if the continuity of the positions (ie. filling of the positions after the maturity of the society) is given over to a system outside of the incumbent's control then it doesn't matter how much they want to stay in power they just can't. And popular votes are very much not outside of their control.

I don't for one minute think that any single type of governance can solve all the problems.  We spend too much time talking about various types of governance, worrying about the naming convention of different types of governance (technocracy, monarchy, etc) and whether or not our ideas are being taken into consideration. Why not take the best out of all the "named" ideas of governmental systems and fill in the gaps with other ideas such as direct democracy and positions of responsibility.  

Also there is nothing to stop any person taking action on their own ideas within the bounds of the society or constitution. If we think our ideas are great then we should do something with that idea. We shouldn't be worrying that no one listened to it or took it into consideration. Just go out and do something about it. As long as it doesn't interfere with other people's lives or cause destruction of the society then why do we need recognition by other people.  I'm pretty sure that's called maturity and I'm equally sure getting upset because no one listened to me is called immaturity.

My main point is that there needs to be a replacement of the position of power with a position of responsibility without privilege.  As with any structure of society and governance there are many points that need definition and refining.  At this stage no one that I know of has really put together something like a full constitution or the accompanying legislation which would define this style of governance.

In no country on earth at any time in our current recorded history has representative politics worked the way you envisage it.  The closest we came was one short period during the Greek control of their part of the world. Even that was destroyed by a bloke who wanted to be king.  Today's systems of representative politics have only lead us to a militarised world where secret government departments get free money and run around the world causing havoc, leaving no real power for the general populace.  @thor you talk about voting people out because they are corrupt.  We vote only for people who are already in power and who already control the situation.  A politician may be voted out or in to a position seemingly by protest of the people, however they are not removed from any real power. They are still politicians, still have their high powered businesses which they have made sure benefit from their time in office, still have the enormous amounts of money they pilfered while in office, still have lifetime free travel, still have enormous benefit packages paid for by the peoples taxes, still (in a lot of countries) have immunity from what (if you or I committed such acts) would be called crimes.  And in most countries there really are only 1 to 3 parties who actually get to be at the top job. In some countries (like mine) they just swap it around and if any other party looks like getting in they bi-partisan the third party's arse out of there and commit such corrupt acts against the third party that if I were to do them I would be imprisoned for life.

Sorry if that is a sad view of he situation however I did say I had a pessimistic view of human nature in the current society.  That's why I think a new, different form of governance is required. And that's why I find it incredible that people worry about what the governance is called or get upset because their ideas are not listened to.  

One last thought i have....

I'm not taking away from the excellent work done in posting really good suggestions and reasoned arguments by so may people, a number of which I have helped with over the past 4-5 months.  However maybe we have taken the wrong direction with this approach.  I really feel that we aren't asking the right questions we are simply shouting at the admin about what we think is wrong and what we think it should be.  Perhaps we should put our own ideas back on the shelf for a short time and simply ask "Why do you want this or that?".  After all it is their show and we are just being invited along for the ride.  None of us have put any money, resource or reputation on the line yet. Look at it honestly, we even complained about the possible imposition of taxes or fees and yet, in our daily life, we willingly join organisations which charge us fees and give very little in return. All the above put together feels like a lapse in logic to me.

That's ok @bigred: do it and I'll follow you.

@bigred

Fantastic analysis :) I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. That being said, I do have a few counterpoints I would like to make. Sit back, this will get long :)

1. In my opinion, Parliament positions are not quite positions of power, but rather positions of representation
   1. We could work through the laws, etc. to work out the kinks and loopholes that result in corruptibility and provide Parliament with overly comfortable lives once they leave
   2. What I mean by positions of representation will be made clearer in my next bullet
2. My view of needing a Parliament, and a President for that matter, is out of practicality, not out of need for power.
   1. Again, my view of these positions is that of representation
   2. The people elect parliament and the president (Head of State) to enact what their viewpoints are
   3. The reason this is necessary is because not everyone can be heard (see Reddit analogy); Again, less about being listened to, and more about the ideas actually being seen/heard
   4. It would be highly impractical/improbable for any diplomacy to occur under a Direct Democracy
      1. Imagine you have to strike a deal with the US
      2. The US President is talking to the nation
      3. There is no direct and easy conversation; it would have to take place one sentence at a time spread over months because every sentence made would be presented to the people for the entire population to decide on a response
      4. Even if we had a Parliament and no HoS, it would still take days, if not weeks
      5. With a President, who is elected based on a specific set of principles, he can present a good characterization of what the people want and actually have a diplomatic conversation
      6. I know what you're probably thinking though, "the concept of this society is to move beyond Earth politics." And, yes, that is true, but this argument still comes into play in the event that, what I personally am hopeful that happens, we discover intelligent Alien life.
3. I agree wholeheartedly that the election system is broken
   1. I believe this is the key premise behind the clauses about no political parties
   2. Political parties are completely broken and they tend to keep the top two or three parties in power
   3. It also causes individuals to vote against their conscience because they want to ensure another person doesn't get into power
   4. There is a quite simple fix for this, called Alternative Voting
      1. The premise behind this vote is that the voters will be able to rank their choice from most wanted to least wanted (you can do all candidates or just up to a certain number).
      2. After everyone has placed their rankings, the votes for all top choices are tallied.
      3. If someone has won a majority (or 2/3, 3/4, etc.; whatever the limit is), then they win the position
      4. If no one has one, the candidate with the least amount of votes is dropped from the candidate pool
      5. All of the votes that originally went to this candidate are removed, and people who voted for a secondary candidate have their secondary candidate votes added in.
      6. In the event that they only voted for their top N choices, their vote is removed from the total number of votes once the vote passes beyond their Nth choice.
      7. The process is repeated until someone has won the limit set for the vote (majority, 2/3, etc.)
      8. This method of voting has some extreme advantages:
         1. It discourages people from not voting for someone because they don't think they have a chance to win (in the example of the US, this would be like people who want to vote for a third party, but change their vote to their less desirable candidate because they think the third party can't win)
         2. It allows people to still generally get a candidate they are relatively okay with, as long as they are in the majority of people. So if they get their third choice, at least they didn't get their sixth, etc.
      9. This sort of voting removes the need for a party system and allows people to vote their conscience rather than voting along party lines
   5. In addition to this, I would propose a repository of key questions that are pertinent to society that every candidate must fill out
      1. This will allow each citizen to make an informed decision on the candidates at hand, and not just on who's in the party they like most
   6. Finally, I would also propose some sort of limits to campaign spending that are reasonable for any candidate to reach
      1. If a candidate could not reach these funds themselves, then they could either be subsidized by the government, or some other method of correcting this issue
      2. In addition, you could set up ruling that, if a candidate wants to go above the limit, they can raise the limit for that election by contributing into a fund for all other candidates by an amount equal to the difference multiplied by the number of candidates
      3. E.g.:
         1. Current limit is set to 250,000 Solar; Candidate 1 wants to spend 300,000 Solar on their campaign
         2. There are 5 other candidates in the pool
         3. Candidate 1 can spend 300,000 Solar on their campaign, but they must contribute (50,000*5)=250,000 Solar to a fund for the other candidates to use
         4. Any leftover Solar in this fund would be contributed to the government at the conclusion of the campaign (to prevent candidates from waiting until the last minute to create this fund making it so others couldn't use their money and they get it back)
4. I like, and understand, the idea behind everyone being trained on everything (I know that's not exactly what you were getting at, but in principle). That being said, this only makes sense in small groups of people (such as on the ISS), and even then I'm fairly certain it doesn't work like this
   1. Yes, everyone needs extensive training on safety, how to live in space, how to perform basic tasks, etc.
   2. That being said, you need specific individuals who are highly skilled in repairs, etc. and this should be a percentage of the population, not the entire population
      1. This would be tasks like, repairing life support systems, repairing flight controls, etc.
      2. In the example of the ISS, there are likely only 2-3 (it would probably only need to be one, but with that critical of a system, you could not have a single point of failure) who are able to handle basic repairs
      3. Detailed repairs actually come from the Earth and can be relayed to them
   3. I would say that we would follow this same method for our nation as soon as we expand into space
      1. Every citizen living in space would be required to understand extensive safety training, etc.
      2. You would have specialized citizens who can handle detailed repair (enough to get a system Band-Aid in place until contact with detailed system experts to get a full fix)
      3. You have a smaller number of citizens who are the system experts who are able to fully repair system

Anyway, just a few thoughts for your perusal,

BloodyClean

I just wanted to announce that I have brought my updates to the Skieswanne-Ghodrati Constitution. 

@bloodyclean - Good definition. Interesting and fun to read.

To clarify:

1) Although a constitution will need to take the future into consideration, due to the nature of a project such as asgardia, I think there are important factors that need to be considered as being of greater immediate necessity than defining the eventual outcome in precise detail.  That is I see the constitution as something that is a set of basics and allows the governing structure to be able to grow to meet the demands/needs of the future.

2) When I say "direct democracy" I don't envisage it as every sentence needing to be voted on.  If that was the case then you wouldn't have any need for a representative (as in the case you described of talking to other parties).  The voting is on the direction of the society and matters that have an impact (ie. matters of state).  The reason for having the positions of responsibility is so that the projects, tasks and direction are kept on track on a day to day basis.  Like a job site foreman.  The foreman doesn't decide on the direction or policy or architecture. They ensure that the job goes smoothly and according to the plan that has been laid out for them.  They make day to day decisions on matters within that job according to the guidelines given.  So the populace votes on direction of the society in matters such as large financial decisions, whether to sign treaties, how to present the society to others, over-riding laws, state projects, etc. Remember these are matters of the state not small items of everyday work which are needed to run the nuts and bolts of society like spending on the coffee machine.  In building a high-rise building the foreman knows what he can say and who he has to deal with by looking at the plan, talking to the architect and reading all the rules surrounding the building and supply codes in that area.  This same principle is easy to apply to "striking a deal" with some other country.  Anyway that particular case is not such a good example because any deal between states always comes with a ream of paper defining it and that could be put straight to the populace to vote a simple yes or no on.  Having said that I understand your point, though I feel you misinterpreted what I have described above.

3) You worry about ideas not being seen or heard due to size.  If the above is true then the forum for ideas becomes limited and not so much a discussion (As we have devolved these forums into) as just a statement of ideas which can be more easily summarised to a form which can be voted on.  Remember these are state works not ideas for every day life or business or the minutia of the maintenance of the habitat.  Also remember in any democracy at least the pass/fail voting percentage limit will not get what they want. Unfortunately it seems that in many people's minds this is unacceptable simply because it wasn't what they wanted.  The current "he's not my president" movement in the USA is a grand example of this.  I know this is a bit utopian but this attitude has to be removed before any system will gain the ability to withstand corruption because that ability comes from people trying to get their way in spite of hurting others.

4) "I believe this is the key premise behind the clauses about no political parties" - yes absolutely. Which is what a lot of us missed in the first reading of the DoU.  The concept of trying to become the popular one can only lead to corruption and, as you say, people voting against their conscience (although those that do most likely have no real conscience that includes the good of others). 

5) A higher level of training in situational and operational knowledge for everyone does not mean that everyone is an "expert" in everything.  I used @thor's example to show that a lot of the things you envisage as being too difficult are actually a necessity of every day life in such an environment.  Let me give you one closer to home.  If we are citizens of a state without territory on earth then we have to be more politically aware and educated concerning how to deal with the day to day life within the countries we live in.  In many countries having this dual citizenship is just not allowable - I'm talking about countries which are termed "western" or "developed" countries not some war-torn African jungle which people think is uncivilised.  Also many of the laws of people's country of residence will be in direct opposition to a number of the principles of Asgardia - such as going into space or working on the propellant systems for such.  People who have declared their allegiance/citizenship to Asgardia will need to be careful and better educated in the law and political exigencies than the population of the world is currently.  In either of the envisaged situations in which a society like Asgardia will find itself (state without territory or living in space) the training is just a factor of life.  It must begin at birth with explanation and a way of thinking and living. It must continue during maturity with formal education in a lot more than we currently train people in.

OK, now let me look at some of the suggestions you made and see if we can mix and match them to come up with a better idea than both of us have alone.  Bear in mind that in the beginning a lot of direction and policy will have to be set by the "founders" (disastrously arrogant term but I think you understand my meaning) so a lot of people might be a bit disappointed and have to make a decision to continue or not.  Lets just take that as wrote and say the main direction, the beginning projects needed to create the society and the initial positions of responsibility have been set/appointed etc.

1) Appointment of positions

Say we utilise a lottery style as I suggested to appoint the "ministers". This could also be used to create a "parliament" of people whose job it was to 

- attend to, form and put forward proposals from the ideas posted on whatever forum is designated for ideas of such matters of state.

- decide if ideas are in line with the direction and principles of the constitution and society vote decisions.  This could be done by a voting system such as you described only not for people but for ideas/projects that affect society as a whole (state projects).  Those voted as ok are to be prepared for proposal for referenda.

- put forward changes in policy and law for referenda. This requires the research, formulation and proposal just as is done in any parliament.

- hold and run voting referenda.

- Handle decisions on day-to-day running of the society in line with the populace vote and on-going projects (ie. the overall running of the jobs under the minister)

This would remove the need for campaigning and popular voting. It would also remove the political party system and leave the way open for complete conscience voting on policy.  As well if these people are changed in a regular manner the ideas and system don't become either stale or the direction of one person or group.  Because the people are chosen at random there is no one group or popular person taking over the direction and getting changes to the system pushed through.  They have to work together or the whole society falls out of the sky - literally.

As an aside to that.... if we did have elections for people why in the world would you allow a campaign. Your suggestion of a question sheet they all have to fill out is spot on. Why not have a rule that they all have to write out their policies and fill out that question form and that's it. No campaigning, no money from the public coffers and no additional "personal" money being put in so the rich get to be candidates and others don't get a look in.

I do agree with something in the subtext of your suggestions being, it is probably wise to choose a head of state who has the natural ability to talk to people and has experience and common sense. So electing that person might be a good idea. However no campaign is needed. Just a resume, the question sheet, policy statement and perhaps a couple of public, live interviews. Maybe each candidate gets to go with the incumbent a couple of times to participate in inter-state meetings which are telecast to the populace so everyone can see how well they handled the situations presented to them.

Positions need to be rotated on a staggered system for continuity of projects and work. That is, I don't think it is a good idea to replace all ministries at once as the incoming people would have a period where they are coming up to speed which could impact currently running projects adversely.

Perhaps a person is picked for a position of one ministry and (after training) does a certain time frame in that ministry then rotates through the rest of the ministries as new people are appointed to the old ministry.  When they rotate through all ministries they move out of the ministry to a normal job.  This might take too, long I don't know. I'm just putting ideas out there. 

There should be no privileges attached to any position, no additional salary, no free travel unless on state business, no special life long benefits, no immunity from prosecution no benefits or privileges - it is just a position which needs to be done to keep the society running.  The attitude presented should be that we are mature enough to do the job and understand the role.

***[ Part 2 to Follow ]****

*****[ Part 2 ]*****

2) Training and work

There are certain attitudes and jobs that just need to be known by everyone (let's focus on the future of space although the state without territory needs specific training in attitude and knowledge base as well due to it being the precursor to living in space and the hostile political environment).  Obviously there needs to be specialists and certainly people just do choose certain careers.  There needs to be a way for people to follow their career choices as well as participate in other areas and share the load of keeping the society working.  This includes everything from ministry position on down to janitor.  Perhaps everyone is lottery chosen to participate in each job but there is an allowance for people to still specialise.  A lot of the jobs such as maintenance, food supply, cleaning etc may not take up the majority of hours so there is still room for people to follow further training, work on their own ideas or work in their own chosen career.  Some jobs are definitely full time - remember these are all jobs which are running of the state - ie. public works positions including cleaning, food supply, accounting, clerical, maintenance, various aspects of projects (which may mean training in anything, maybe even orbital physics). Not everyone is going to be the best at each job or even want to do it, but a basic knowledge and experience of doing it under supervision is going to help everyone.  

Unless they choose to themselves, it should not be possible that a person gets assigned to the same task twice before everyone else has had an opportunity to be involved in the task.  People who are given a task for the specified period need to be allowed that time from their regular employment without losing any benefits as this is just work that is needed to keep the state operating efficiently.  Also people need to be able to opt for a period of years that they can concentrate on their own career.  The governance positions of ministry or parliament a person may be able to reject if they don't feel capable or for conscience without discrimination.  Other jobs which are necessary for the running of the society probably should not be allowed to be rejected, otherwise things like janitorial will never get done.  This method will mean that people are given a basic understanding and training in everything involved in the society.  Also if no one is exempt from this system (including the people that become or have been head of the state) it builds an attitude of working together towards the common goals.

3) Constitution

Most of the constitution can be the same as most constitutional thought pretty much agreed to by the majority - even on these forums :-)

The only personal difference I would make is that it only holds the bare bones of how the governance is appointed and structured and allow the workings of the government and the minutia such as dismissal etc to be in the legislative documents. This would allow the realities of a growing society to mold the day-to-day governing needs without changing the methodology or base principles.  Too much detail in the constitution seems to lead to too much debate about what is left out. I think just include statement of sovereignty, the vision, goals, broad principles of society(including benefits/rights of citizens and state responsibility), base governing structure, legal structure, process for change of the constitution.  Perhaps include a clause that states certain legislative documents (defining how laws and changes are to take place, principles surrounding appointment to jobs/tasks, time periods of appointments, etc) are part of the constitutional commitment.  That leaves room for these to change to better reflect the changing needs of a society which expands in the future.

I know this is all a bit utopian but hey, we are discussing a way to try and not repeat what human nature has brought us to currently.  How's that for a start @thor?
Perhaps we should take this off-forum as it's getting way too big

Have fun with it :-)

@bigred
I know this is all a bit utopian but hey, we are discussing a way to try  and not repeat what human nature has brought us to currently.  How's  that for a start @thor?

I'm terribly sorry, @bigred, but I can't read a legal book all the times one answers, here. Maybe, if I was english motherlanguage, I could do even this but, not being a lawyer, the matter is somewhat heavy to me. Nonetheless I'm seeing there are competent and passionate ones in this forum, so I'm sure you're read as you deserve.

Like "common people", I can say logic-driven basic things only, like "I won't bow in front of a king" or "I won't pass my whole life reading laws and voting them". That apart, I can support representative democracy, brought forward by people who knows these things well enough. The important thing is, first in the Constitution but later in the laws also, there are "checks and balances" to avoid one can monopolize the whole system (like with the official Constitution's draft).

Utopic things, despite the fact we should go into space (in 30-40 years, not tomorrow), are not in my chords: they tend too early to be bent by people who knows how to do those things (maybe you know something called "Scientology" ;-)). I prefer "doable" things, even doable in 30 years since now, but doable by normal persons like we are.
Remember that, if "human nature" did what we can see, there are reasons, logical ones, if looked from the correct perspective. Sometimes a "reason" is "I'll grab the power so that you won't do it, so that you won't oppress me... I'll try not to oppress you (can't swear)". That's not utopic at all, just common sense.
Another "common sense" can be "I'll make a kingdom as I need a nation but, as the starting things (capitals, organization, people, infrastructures) are mine, the only nation which can suit the need it all remains mine, at least for the next 35 years, is a kingdom (ruled by me". That make sense, despite the fact it involves others which wouldn't "bow in front of a king". What does it mean? Which will be the (logical) consequence? The consequence will be the king will find ones which will bow, and others (like me) will go elsewhere. All that is not "horrible" nor something "weird": it's logic.

I wrote all this as I'm feeling you was expecting too much from me: I'm a technician, nothing less, noting more. Just, on the policy side, I listen to my Parliament's works all the time I can, so I've at least an idea of what's going on in a "real" Parliament: nothing I can (or want) take part... even if I can hear things which I could say better than them, sometimes. ;-)

@bigred

Whoo, okay, where to start :) (and I'll try and keep this short)

Starting on your comments:

1. I agree; will talk to this more later
2. I think this is just an issue with semantics; I don't see how you could have a pure "direct democracy" and still have people who are making decisions without the input of everyone. That being said, I think what you are trying to get at is a reasonable form of government; may just need to either find a way to clarify, or come up with a cool new name for this type of government
3. I think this is something to consider, perhaps you have a person (or, more realistically, a group of people) who's job is to compile the entire nation's thoughts into a single document to be voted on by all citizens... seems like a daunting task to me though
4. No comment
5. Agreed; more comments to come

Now on to your proposed ideas:

1. I would find it interesting to appoint the more political/representative positions through a lottery. I would think that we would want people who have been through training/education/careers of that sort of job role throughout their adult lives. This would help to prevent people from having to spend months getting caught up on the job.
   1. In addition to this, I think, as in LoreZyra's technocratic democracy, it would make sense that the Ministers of those specific Ministries have degrees in those fields
   2. As to the removal of campaining, I agree wholeheartedly :) I really like the idea of either a live Q&A, or tagging along with the existing HoS, or both.
   3. Outside of representative positions, I could see a lottery position working for a lot of the positions, such as National facilities (janitorial, repair, etc.), for the Citizens.
      1. I don't know too much about this, but I could definitely see this working similarly to mandatory military service (as I believe Israel does). Just set it up so that everyone ages 18-21 must perform three years of service (with the lottery changing jobs every year)?
      2. Just throwing out ideas here.
2. I think my thoughts on this are decently summed up above
3. I agree (and I know that LoreZyra has agreed with this in the past as well). In actuality, the constitution should be parsed down and the ideas that are removed should be placed in a separate set of laws. However, at least in the case of our technocratic Constitution, we wanted to keep it close to what the official "constitution" already looked like so as to make it easier to compare and/or adopt when taking in the input of those providing it.

Great read though. Glad to have these discussions; really gets me thinking.

BloodyClean

Anyone willing to critique my proposed Democratic Technocracy? I would be happy to receive critical feedback where the checks and balances are lacking or missing. 

@LoreZyra

Would it be worth it to post a link to a properly formatted Word version of what we have on the GitHub to make it easier to follow?

BloodyClean

Is the text version too difficult to read?

(redacted)

A Democratic Technocracy just promotes another type of discrimination . That of socalled people who are smarter then the guy who busts his rump. I'v known many people of that mind set over the years ,and I say a good part of them lack common sense when I comes to the really hard things in life . They mostly put their own interests ahead of whats right for the majority

@LoreZyra, it is my understanding that, based on some of the feedback in this forum, most people either don't know how to use GitHub properly, or they find it difficult to scroll left and right. Just a few thoughts :)

@RickySickles I understand where you are coming from. I am definitely of the opinion that you can't assume that everyone with a degree is qualified, and everyone without a degree is not necessarily unqualified. That being said, for the running of a highly technical operation such as the various ministries, it makes perfect sense to ensure that the head of these areas is one who has had the formal education and training on the specific specialties the job requires.

BloodyClean

All,

For those interested, I have posted a well formatted document on the GitHub that LoreZyra has been utilizing for an optimized constitution. If you are interested in reviewing our proposal, please find the link below.

https://github.com/lorezyra/Asgardia.Government/blob/master/Asgardia%20Constitution%20-%20Proposal.pdf

Please feel free to offer input/feedback.

BloodyClean