Mar 26, 17 / Tau 01, 01 13:10 UTC

Re: Working Thread - Compilation of Community Suggestions for the Asgardia Constituion  

Page 15:

With respect to employment hours, this should be left out of the constitution. I believe this is better defined by the employer or local community. It should be an agreement between the employer and employee. Not defined at the government level.

Page 16

In terms of Economy, for as long as we all trade for the mutual benefit of all, there should be no need for any physical form of currency. I don't mean that we revert back to the impractical barter system. Rather, I believe "The Venus Project" had a better proposal of a "resource based economy." While I don't wish to use the term scarcity, I admit there is no avoiding it. We could use the advancements with BitCoin (or similar tech) to issue everyone a digital wallet with a set amount of credit. Everything would be very cheap (not exactly free, but perhaps close to free). For things that would limit the carrying capacity of the community, those items should be expensive. Perhaps you would have to save up a few months before you could earn it. I'm not a huge fan of capitalism - too easily corrupted. But, I don't believe we should encourage greed at wholesale of society. For as long as all citizens work together for the mutual benefit of all, there should be no need of taxes. In a way, I liked the concept behind the sci-fi movie "In Time" where everyone is born with a biological clock and you exchange the time from that clock for goods or services. The difference is I should not die when I have no more time. Instead, I should work longer to earn more time. My ideal would be everyone is constantly contributing to the betterment of society. If you remove the stress of money, there will be constant evolution of technology for all.

Page 17

  1. Has engaged in, or may engage in, omnicide." How does one predict the future in "may engage in, omnicide?

Proven past patterns of criminal behavior is sufficient grounds to deem citizenship application ineligible... The phrase "may engage" is too vague and should be removed.

Asgardians may withdraw their Asgardian citizenship at any time by sending a Notice to Withdraw Citizenship in-writing to the Asgardian government ( If that Asgardian is on a space-borne vessel at the time, they will be deposited at their desired point-of-origin at their own expense. (Skieswanne note: I strongly support this suggestion. It enables people to voluntarily relinquish their citizenship, if they want, without having to commit a crime to achieve such a goal. )

Agreed with @Skieswanne.

Should a computer program be considered a "being?" No matter how intelligent, it has an on/off switch and can be deactivated and reactivated without harm to its internal systems. The same cannot be said of organic beings. We cannot be simply turned off. As such, can an advanced program (Artificial Intelligence) be deemed a citizen? Should that AI be allowed to vote too? While I love technology and the promise it brings to make my life ever so enjoyable, I also question giving it the status of a being. Keep in mind that a program, regardless of how advanced, can still be reprogrammed by another organic being (think of a computer virus)...

Page 20

The Constitution should encourage amendments. However, I agree with "the rule of amending the Constitution should be immune to alterations or overruling..." Future generations should be the judge of any amendment's fit to the current society's demands. But the clause for amendments should definitely be locked in stone and unchangeable.

(to be continued in another post)

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 11:08 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: fixed formatting

Mar 26, 17 / Tau 01, 01 15:04 UTC

Hello LoreZyra!

The document is not in any way a version of the Constitution. it is only a compilation of community suggestions for the Constitution of Asgardia. These will be sent to a legal team versed in constitutional law and reviewed for merit and legal validity. Then a full draft will be put together and posted for community review where all feedback will be considered and incorporated if they stand up to constitutional law.

We do value your feedback on this thread but most likely you should wait until the draft is posted. :)

Kind regards,
Rebekah Berg, Lead Community Administrator, Asgardia

Mar 26, 17 / Tau 01, 01 15:24 UTC

Hi Rebekah Berg,

Unfortunately, I realize that I'm a couple months too late to contribute any major suggestions to this document. However, it is my hope that in these last few hours, I could make some suggestions/comments as to what is already in the compilation.

If you have no objection, I wish to continue my comments on the remaining 28 pages I have not reviewed. (Maybe not tonight as I need to retire to bed.)

Of course, I look forward to the draft and participating in the review process.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 12:15 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: fixed formatting

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 01:09 UTC

When will the draft be posted? We are already less than 90 days from the vote. This is not enough time for review and public comment, much less revisions.

Also, what do you mean by "legal validity"? A constitution determines the legal validity of domestic laws, so is it a reference to complying with the UN Charter?

Mar 28, 17 / Tau 03, 01 01:42 UTC

Wow, guys... Some of you are proposing very Orwellian ideas. We must be very careful and not get overboard. We must respect other people's rights to live how they choose to live. Also, there are things like shelter, food, and access to health care that should be a right. People in space should be free of the survival mindset in order to innovate.

Also, I think this will guarantee more people will develop occupations based on their true interests and talents and not be forced into some menial job because the need for survival forces them to rather than allow them to pursue their happiness and freedom of choice.

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 10:06 UTC

Page 22:

Term “being” is not properly defined. What is “Earth Defense Force?” Where is “Word of Law” defined?

a Class 4 Criminal Offense

This is not defined. Furthermore, what are the classes of the offenses?

Each entity banned from travel shall be subject to a vote in the Democratic Assembly of Asgardia which must reach an absolute consensus.

Why must a unanimous vote be required to banned entities from travel?

Page 23:

There must be a clause for Separation of Church and State. There should be no statement acknowledging some imaginary figure-head.

We recognize the powers that we call God, Spirit and Mind.

This statement has no value in a society founded on science.

Why must there be a “Ministry of Manners??” Assuming everyone receives the same formal and standardized education, there should be no need of such a “police state” to monitor the citizens! I would, however, support granting the “Ministry of Citizens” the ability to gift titles to citizens. Such as “knighthood” or something similar. Perhaps, “Grand Asgard?”

Page 25:

valid hegelian dialect

Why must a dialect be required?

Page 26

There should be no Constitutional Court; Constitutional issues should be resolved directly by the people; there could be a court of review to offer an opinion should a ministry choose to create conflicting law or regulation, but ultimately it would be up to the people to accept or reject rulings that were found to contradict the charter and either amend it or reject the law.

How should citizens be organized and presented the options to vote on Constitutional changes?

Government language, law and regulation must be written in such a way that the common citizen or student can read and understand the meaning and intent of the document.

There should be an assumption of comprehension level for this document. It certainly must be of a reasonable level. Perhaps, high-school or college-freshman level?

Page 27

“The Asgardian government will never take a citizen's life, unless in immediate need to protect the lives of other citizens and/or non-citizen humans. ”

This not only conflicts with the expressed repulsion of the Death Penalty, it’s illogical. At no point does the forced death of a citizen gain value to Asgardia. Furthermore, a being should not be strictly defined as “human.” While we have yet to discover Extraterrestrial life forms, this should not be limited to humans.

With regard to protecting Asgardia, this should indeed be clearly defined. What are the powers, if any, of a military branch?

Regarding detainment of a citizen (and non-citizen), the maximum length of 72 hours is recommended in the event evidence is forthcoming but is still in transmission. IF the arrest warrant is not issued, then the release of such person must be made. Indeed, a person is given the right to a speedy trail upon request. In such event, they will be allowed only those citizens and their local peers to represent the court. I agree that a hearing must be made within 60 days of apprehension. The court should strongly favor rehabilitation and training of such person if found guilty of an established, written crime. Physical torture and excessive cruelty result in no value to Asgardia on the whole. Without training to reincorporate such individuals into our society, we lose possible productivity and knowledge that every person can contribute.

Page 28:

Regarding term limits, I agree that public offices should be limited to a maximum of 8 years. Additionally, there should be limits on the number of terms that official can run.

“Governmental or corporate restrictions on the ability to run should be prohibited. ”

This makes no sense when you are “restricting” the position to an expert…

“The form of government of Asgardia shall be a Direct Democratic Confederation.”

I’m huge not a fan of representative democracy as I have observed within the US how representatives have often ignored their constituents in favor of money from lobby interest. Having read about Switzerland’s form of Direct Democracy, I find I concur with this proposal. Furthermore, I would propose Direct Democratic Technocracy. As we have started with a “Head Of State,” we are essentially starting with a “Constitutional Monarchy?” I’m fine with this as long as H.o.N. powers are explicitly defined and limited within the Constitution. (Think Japan or UK.)

Page 30

I’m in favor of a rigid Constitution that defines a flexible government. This document should define the structure and required functions of the government without specifics to the daily functions of its Citizenry. Additionally, there should be a clause to follow a separate document of Amendments as voted by the majority.

“instead of trying to uphold abstract (and subjective) principles, it would be more efficient to clearly define what is not allowed from either parties. This next suggestion is highly reflective of the people's (nearly unanimous) suggestions”

Completely agreed.

Page 35

With respect to crimes and capital punishments. As I have written before, we must respect life. Exile should be the worst punishment handed to any Asgardian. Serious crimes should be not an excuse for prisons to exist. Rather we should rehabilitate such an individual to be a valuable, productive member of society.

Page 38

There is no clearly defined age of when an Asgardian is considered an Adult. I propose that age be 18. At this age, one should have completed their basic studies to survive in society. They should be eligible to hold office after reaching Adulthood.

Page 40

I suppose I am to assume all references of day, month, years, etc. are from the reference of Earth? We cannot assume that our space dwelling nation will be confined to the system of Sol. I propose the measurement of time to be defined by the distance light travels. An AU is understood to be 8 Earth minutes. Perhaps we could adopt something like this?

What is meant by “Constitutional Article 12 Asgardia Constitution Changes every 5 Goverments. (20 Years)”

This should not be forced! Only by the will of the nation and popular vote should the Constitution be amended…

Why must there be a party system within the government??? Why not assign by merit such as a Technocracy?

Page 44

I propose we use a system similar to BitCoin for the CitiSlices/FinGard. Hmm, “DigiGard.” I like it. But with all these proposed terms of different types of currency, I believe it quickly becomes too confusing. So, I agree that we should say MetaGard or just “Meta” for a means of representing all forms of Asgardia money.

Page 47

Public officials are elected with the most votes as long as there is greater than a 5 percent difference.

This should be a simple majority. In a close race where one has 47% and the opponent has 48%, the candidate with the most votes should be awarded the position.

Page 48

I’m strongly in favor of all public offices be voted by the majority of Citizens. Ministers should be voted. Not appointed.

Page 49

I favor creating a military for Asgardia. However, I’m not sure it should be required by the Constitution. It could be established as an Amendment? I don’t believe it should be called EDF. We should not confine ourselves to the district of Earth for eternity. “Asgard Collective” would be the name I would assign the Military force. I do agree that this should be an extension of “law enforcement” as it would pertain to the protection of the nation or its vital resources.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 11:18 UTC, Total number of edits: 4 times
Reason: fixed formatting

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 12:24 UTC

I favor creating a military for Asgardia. However, I’m not sure it should be required by the Constitution. It could be established as an Amendment? I don’t believe it should be called EDF. We should not confine ourselves to the district of Earth for eternity. “Asgard Collective” would be the name I would assign the Military force. I do agree that this should be an extension of “law enforcement” as it would pertain to the protection of the nation or its vital resources.

Having read further into community suggestions, the "military" should be an extension of the Police force. I don't believe it should be explicitly defined within the Constitution.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 12:48 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 12:25 UTC

How do you propose to reconcile "Adgardian military" with "demiliterised free base of scientific knowlege in space"?

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 12:33 UTC


How do you propose to reconcile "Adgardian military" with "demiliterised free base of scientific knowlege in space"?

The "military" would only be an extension of the Police as a means of self-defense. Similar to how Japan has a "Self Defense Force." It's mission should not provocate war, but defend the nation against external threats.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 12:35 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 12:37 UTC

Ahh - but .jp's "self defence force" isn't a "military" - there is a specific and important difference...

Realistically, we should have little to no use for "military response". Once we've moved from near Earth orbit, assuming no advancements in propulsion technology, to gain any decent coverages it'll be spread far too thin to be of use. One soldier per six billion square miles type thin. Even in near Earth orbit only, it's far too unlikley to be able to lift enough troops to be able to actually do anything - and then they still have to somehow get them all through the airlock which is going to be a natural choke point, without them being cable tied as the cross the threshold or simply mowed like wheat. Assuming we allowed them proximity to even think about docking.

  Updated  on Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 12:41 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: Additional data

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 12:43 UTC


Ahh - but .jp's "self defence force" isn't a "military" - there is a specific and important difference...

And, this is why I placed the word military in quotes. Our police force would essentially be a shield for the nation.

This could be further defined / limited under the Ministry of Safety and Security. I don't believe it must be explicitly defined in the constitution.

  Last edited by:  Richie Bartlett (Asgardian)  on Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 12:59 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: further details.

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 16:24 UTC

Premise, I'm not a lawyer nor a Constitutional Judge at all. Those which follows are just my thoughts when reading the document's proposals, with even some of my proposals into, between the rows.

As the public suggestion gathering process should end at 31 march, I'm posting here a collection of thoughts and notices about the Google DOCs document I read.
Not sure the document itself have not been changed in the meantime, my references are "per page" as I read at 20-23 march, but I'm giving even some excerpts to ease the searching, where needed.

  1. pag.4: "Democratic Assembly of Asgardia": didn't found any reference on what this DAA (or DAoA) should be, how have it to be formed/elected, how much have it to remain "in charge". Is it a Parliament?

  2. pag. 4: "Government of Asgardia": even here I didn't found how the Government will be elected/formed/appointed, by who, which are the forming/voting criteria, etc. (I bet in a Constitution we should have these "details")

  3. pag. 7: "obbligation to be peaceful" seems in conflict with "obbligation to protect Asgardia and citizens": maybe more exact to write "Asgardia refuses from violence as attack to other persons/organizations, but it will defend the Nation, the territory and the citizens".

  4. pag. 8: "Asgardians should be allowed access to technologies such as cleaner energy, in an effort to make Asgardia a place with less pollution and with better ecological harmony": I'm noticing we've no Ministry of Ecology (spatial).

  5. pag. 8: "...every Asgardian above the age of majority...": the (asgardian's) "majority age" seems undefined at the moment: 14 years old? 16? 18? 21?

  6. pag. 8: "Health care services shall not be denied...": I'm noticing we've no Ministry of Health as well.

  7. pag. 9: " less than twelve of his Asgardian peers...": even numbers may create problems, when we'll need to decide: better to use odd ones, 11, 13, etc.

  8. pag. 10: "Skieswanne note: Hm, what's wrong with english?", maybe here I can insert "what's wrong with italian?", pretty sure there will be a better understanding from anglophones/english motherlanguage. ;-)
    Languages' thread is kind of complicate one and is still going on. Sure better to have it into our Constitution but, reading the previous comment, I'm not sure this thread will end so soon.
    My personal advice, based on my european experience, is that it whould be better to adopt a third party, projected, language as existing ones, even if well known, will be unconfortable (while not hated) by some part, maybe not that little, of asgardian's people.
    As we're trying to restart from scratch, trying not be caught later into "he/she is favourite than me as XYZ is his/her motherlanguage", we better adopt a "language of no one", third party, like Esperanto (but not only).

  9. pag. 10: some rows below I'm reading "universal english"... does it means (20%) anglophones had decided for "english" and we'll have to agree?

  10. pag. 10: "I think a mandatory birth control for both young men and women until a set age...": same as pt. 5.

  11. pag. 12: "No members of Asgardia is immune to justice." here we should formalize some kind of "immunity", for Government, Parliament and the Head of State, about "opinion crimes" when they're exercising their functions (not as private citizens, IF this will be defined "a crime" in some circumstances).

  12. pag. 12: "Every citizen of Asgardia shall be scrutinized equally under the law and shall be granted equal rights before the law.", here I would add "Officials in the exercise of their functions will have penalties increased by 30% in case of crime in bad faith" (and, perhaps, a 10% increase if recognized the good faith, for the difference of "damage" that an "official" can do).

  13. pag. 17: "Money and taxes should not exist in the future", terribly sorry but I bet it won't be possible, if we'll have to deal with Earth's international markets for supplies and our needs.

  14. pag. 17: "Replace money with community time." could possibly work in the domestic sales, although this would create a byzantine "time bank" system. But since it would be a "bank", and "time" is still a value, why we doesn't speak directly of "money"?

  15. pag. 18: as a matter of fact, a few rows later is written about "slave labor" and "bartering": the suggestion here is to have a common currency, internationally recognized (eg. XAS), even with official exchange rates with other currencies, but exchangeable in electronic format only (EFT Electronic Funds Transfer), to make it traceable and deaden the recycling of problems, theft and so on. I'm not talking about a criptocurrency as Bitcoin or others, which have been proven to have other problems (ie. Recycling, lack of transparency and the insurance side, see Mt. Gox).

  16. pag. 18: "All votes are public (to prevent tampering)." but, if a secret vote will be needed, for any reason, must be digitally signed and encrypted, in order to ensure uniqueness: the Commission in charge of the elections will have the keys to verify the uniqueness of digital signature verification (this includes creation and management of a Nation's PKI, encryption, or public / private keys).
    It's worth noting that it is not (yet) been defined the way "elections" that will take place on June 18th.

  17. pag. 18: still references to "adult age" but without specify which it is, even if it's not an absolute: different countries have different "adult" or "legal" ages.

  18. pag. 19: "AI is the property of citizens..." it follows that, from the moment an AI will be "owner of itself" (as happens to all citizens) it will receive an ID, citizenship rights and may vote to safeguard it's rights and needs (as well as any entity which have equal rights/duties).

  19. pag. 20: "Also, in the Constitution, the rule of amending the Constitution should be immune to alterations or overruling" but, if we need to change the rules according to which amend the Constitution, it will be necessary to establish a high quorum, for example. at least 4/5 (80%) of the population to vote and a positive vote of 3/5 (60%).

  20. pag. 21: "Perhaps some sort of Ms. Manners ministry or group who decides what should and should not constitute disrespectful behavior". It sounds strange, not having a Ministry of Health, and not even a Ministry of Sport, have a "good manners" one: I think the "good manners" should be regulated by the common civil law.

  21. pag. 22: "...citizen's obligation to vote" also "...the absolute duty of voting..." seems in conflict with "...choosing whether to vote or not is an exercise of the citizen's right to freedom of speech". This seems to have little sense: an "obligation" is something that is not allowed to evade, then avoiders should imagine something can happen (eg. A chat with the "peace judge", a fine, jail, etc.).
    But if something is not required, precisely because there is freedom of thought (and choice), then in the Constitution can not be written "obligation".
    Voting must be presented as "a duty" and "a right", but not as "an obligation".
    For votes on particularly important issues (eg. The renewal of the Government/Parliament, constitutional changes and others) must have a quorum under which it is considered that "the population refuses to express themselves" (meaning there can't still be the few voters to decide) and we'll need to redo the vote, perhaps raising public awareness.

(1/2: continue)

Mar 29, 17 / Tau 04, 01 16:28 UTC


  1. pag. 22: "...We recognize the powers that we call God, Spirit and Mind.": after having read the first sections of the proposals (see Religions) would be rather strange to have references to "God" directly in the Constitution that, for the good of the nation, should be preserved secular.

  2. pag. 23: "The basis of all executive, legislative, and judicial government decisions..." so here we suggest the famous "three basic powers" (also without defining the nature, but later there are some proposals that go down in detail).

  3. pag. 23: "...analysis of reality using the scientific method, evidence-based practices, and intelligent decision-making; supported by reasoned, rational and valid hegelian dialect." here frankly I began a little to laugh: in contention between two (or more) persons (or groups) it seems quite obvious that everyone has his reasons, which "logic" would allow, as an alternative to the law, to establish that some reasons are "more right than others"?

  4. pag. 24: "That the government is responsible to the people and as such cannot spend more than it collects without the expressed consent of the people..." never seen any country working that way, like never seen anyone who isn't yet rich, buy a house without a mortgage.

  5. pag. 25: "There should be no Constitutional Court; Constitutional issues should be resolved directly by the people;" Evidently the writer is Constitutional Judge, so he is able to make judgments about the Constitution.

  6. pag. 25: "...must be written in such a way that the common citizen or student can read and understand..." I notice that we have not even a Ministry of Laws Simplification.

  7. pag. 27: "...Ministers are elected into place by the people..." On what basis? Who is elected? with which program is presented?

  8. pag. 28: "Why do we need any formal government at all, rather a suggestion of government by the masses" I have the feeling that people have/will have more to do than to follow in real time Government's meetings, actively participate, discuss laws (on which basis?), etc.

  9. pag. 29: "There is, I will admit, a risk that a flexible constitution will result in abuse of this pliancy of the law." Very high risk, I fear.

  10. pag. 33: "As such the government is prohibited from rounding up the citizens into an army, unless the people itself vote in favour of such a motion." There are cases in which there is no time to hold a vote, in such cases a "first answer default behavior" should be outlined.

  11. pag. 33: "Asgardian Citizens Shall consider space installations in and around earth’s orbit “demilitarized” zones: non-defensive military operations taken within the vicinity of earth’s orbit are a Constitutional and Treaty Violation and will be considered a terroristic threat." Keep in mind that some installations in orbit are military (Stellar Defense Initiative, spy satellites, communications, etc.) and, in those cases, we shouldn't be able to get closer (nor them to us).
    Secondly I don't think we'll have the strength to obey someone else at some treaty, given that will be signed (and I do not think), on military bases.

  12. pag. 34: " the removal of the perpetrator's citizenship and by exile from Asgardia." The problem here is "where" if the citizen is asgardian, in which earth's country should be exiled? And this country would receive it? There are costs associated with this: we'll pay them?

  13. pag. 35: " opposed to a corporation's desires or a government's ideologies." And, with AIRC which owns Asgardia, what can we do?

  14. pag. 36: "The duties of the Ministries are to carry out the decisions reached by the Head of Nation..." I would prefer the decisions were made on the basis of Ministerial meetings, when not Parliament's ones, in which the opinion of the Head of State would serve mostly to resolve deadlocks.

  15. pag. 36: "Therefore the current Head of Nation may keep the position until the current Head of Nation can no longer perform leadership..." Lifetime mandate?
    It would be appropriate to define a term that does not conflict with the expiry of ministers' mandate, eg. 7 years and maximum two terms, consecutive or not.

  16. pag. 37: "...which acts as a nation-wide jury" All lawyers? More than anything, all able to judge?

  17. pag. 37: "The government is the people. The people has the function of voting for a motion one at a time, which in turn is implemented by the Head of Nation, who commands the appropriate ministries to handle the implementation of the motion." This seems to set up a Legislative branch (in "the people's" hands, I hope by means of a Parliament) and an Executive branch, which runs the Parliament's provisions, coordinated by the Head of State and posed in practice by Ministers.
    If that is the case I like that more.

  18. pag. 37: "The population of Asgardia itself acts like a nation-wide Congress." This part, however, I consider pretty crazy: the Asgardian, both current and future, I'm afraid will have a lot more to do than sit all day stuck at the forum (or other platform) to "vote the laws." Representative democracy, when you are a larger number of, say, 10 people, makes sense.

  19. pag. 38: "Every law can be disobeyed if there is Reason for it." This seems to me very stupid, do not know how else to call it: it seems obvious that, if one disobeys a law is 'cause it has its "reasons" which considers legitimate, even though they are illegal.

  20. pag. 47: "forbidding the existence of a military division would put the nation at risk in the future" Here we take example from the Swiss army, made by ordinary people (and a few professionals, which can be our Police), which every year (I think) are called into service for a short time, to keep them operational and ready to respond to a possible threat. For the rest of the year they're normal citizens.

  21. pag. 47: "...a Constitutional article that promotes the creation of a military might come as aggressive to other nations..." There are also the defensive armies, and Asgardia's one should be. Being defenseless at all will be higher risk than to have a defense army.

Sorry to post it so late (even if still 2 days before the gathering end) but I wished to gather other italians' thoughts about that, as I feel it's important to know what's going on about the (will be) Constitution at least.

My great thanks to all the (four) volunteers who donated their time (and their patience) in gathering (and better shaping) the whole asgardians' proposals.

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 03:52 UTC

@LoreZyra you have done a great job here. I feel I have neglected this thread for being extremely focused on the Declaration of Unity. I just wanted to say that this is a monumental work you have done, thank you.

Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 05:01 UTC

Suggested by @LoreZyra I've migrated a previous post of mine from a discussion on the recent Declaration of Unity draft to this thread.

"I think the declaration needs to tighten its restraints on religion. For example, rather than saying "Asgardia is a country of free spirit, science and internationalism. At the same time, every Asgardian can freely practice any religion on Earth," can it not say the same but be tweaked slightly to have a more restrained nuance? For example: "At the same time, every Asgardian can freely practice religion on Earth, so long as the religion in question does not bring harm to others. Furthermore, Asgardians are discouraged from following religions of which contradict Asgardian ideals." I think although harsh, it's necessary to discourage - not outlaw, mind you - blind religion that goes against overwhelming scientific proof (I.e, believing the world flooded and was repopulated by one man, his family, and two of every animal). Furthermore, I think including the term "any" makes people feel a bit too entitled. While both mean the same thing, it has a less limitless approach, as there are - of course - limits. Also, the inclusion of not bringing harm to others would be important in weeding out extremism. Now my views are quite strong, and in fact I've watered them down to be a bit more fair and politically correct, however I hope at least some of this is considered, especially the exclusion of religions of which bring harm to others (sacrificial religions, cult religions, extremism, exclusive/supremacist religions, etc.). Like many others, I am quite confused in regards to point 12. What does this mean, and is it necessary? If we forget our history surely we forget the lessons we've learned also. I would also like a bit more elaboration on point 9. What government will we have? Could we have a technocracy? I think that would be fitting."

Hopefully these ideas can incite discussion in regards to what is included in the constitution. It is worth noting that wording is almost everything in legal documents. It is not unheard of for the UN assembly to argue for extended periods of time over single words in a resolution.

  Last edited by:  Lachlan Souter (Asgardian)  on Mar 30, 17 / Tau 05, 01 05:06 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time