Cap 21, 00 / Dec 22, 16 22:33 UTC

Re: Writing a valid Constitution : Step 2  

I'm thinking about a combination of Technocracy and Holacracy*. I think that a real and complete Technocracy will be difficult because experts from diffrent domain cannot see thing objectively. So, maybe adding an Holacracy based on the Technocracy method, will allow 'leaders' to have differents point of view from people related to the scientific domain. And, for me, this systeme could be the best gouvernment for a country like Asgardia (based on sciences and people)

This is only my idea and can be inappropriate to the vision of our country.

  • : Holacracy is a form of Democracy based on collective intelligence. Where people are divided on multiple "teams" which are "independant" and can takes minor decisions. Major decisions are taken from decisions of theses "teams". This form of gouvernment allow everybody to participate. Transparancy, Knowledge of everyone and can motivate people to take par of decisions.

Cap 22, 00 / Dec 23, 16 16:11 UTC

First of all, because we´ll be less than a million at the beginning, I'm in favour of a semi-direct democracy. It means that the elected representatives will have to make decisions, but the main and most important decisions have to be taken by all citizens. A few has to govern the much, it´s a political constance in all the political system that works (Cf. Basics principles of politic, Francisco Moreno). We have to define which kind of authority these "few"(means those with authority) have and how they can exercise it.

Te begin: I´ll propose that all decisions made by a member of the Asgardia government can be opposed if at least 100 citizen sign against this decision. In this case(at least if it´s something really urgent) this decision is suspended until it will by submitted to general vote of every Asgardia willing to vote, and confirm or suppressed after the vote. If it´s an urgent decision it stays until the vote. The 100 signatures of citizen to stand against a decision must be collected within a month after the publication of the decision. The vote in favour or against the decision will be summoned by the citizen who has made the petition to collect signature against the mentioned decision, not before one month after collecting the 100th signature, and not after 3 month after the 100th signature.

A member of the government whose more than 20% of decisions are suppressed by popular vote may be immediately proposed for dismissal by a group of 100 citizen or more, using the same procedure that the one used for the decisions.

Thoughts?

Cap 22, 00 / Dec 23, 16 16:25 UTC

About the right to vote:

I'm totally agree with some post pretending that only someone with at least some knowledge in a matter may take part in a voting on that matter. Ignorant vote are a plague on earth...

I don't pretend to reserve the vote to specialists, but to people who show at least a very basic comprehention of the subject.

So democracy, but voting right comes with a voting licence(proposed by someone) corresponding to basic matters. I mean that for example giving an opinion about a scientific orientation, you have to posess at least a mid—secondary level in this particular science. For an ethical decision you have to show a basic conprehention of the argumentation and what may be the consequences of an ethical decision on the society.

«DEMOCRACY, WITH ACQUIRED VOTING RIGHTS BASED ON VERY BASICS KNOWLEDGE ON THE MATTER»

Cap 22, 00 / Dec 23, 16 19:52 UTC

Hi there,

I will first admit that I am no expert in politics and therefore, according to most of the proposed government systems, I should technically not get an opinion on this because It is a political matter and I am "unqualified" to be a part of a political decision.

That actually helps explain my alternative government idea. The problem I have with most of the current and proposed systems is the assumption that "only" experts in their field can come up with a good idea or know what is best. I would have to say that I do put a lot of trust and faith in experts to make the right decision however, if I had an idea or contribution to make, I would want to know that I could make it.

My alternative government has been adapted from my original post to include the things I've learned from discussing it as as well as from the ideas of the other proposed government systems you all have contributed to.

Please take the time to read the entire post if you wish to comment. I encourage constructive criticism and discussion as I realize I am not an expert and this idea likely has several flaws and would need much refinement. It is meant as a starting point and not a finished platform.

Volunteer committies, where any citizen is able to volunteer and contribute to a sector of their personal interest. For example, I may wish to be directly involved in the education system so I volunteer for the education committee. This requires me to attend all committee meetings and partisapate in discussions, proposals and voting.

Committiee meetings would be held in an open public chambers for any to attend. Meetings would also be video broadcast to the entire ship, should citizens wish to tune in to follow or contribute to The voting system for that specific area. Meaning that if John Doe decided he cared about the education system so therefore he regularly follows the committee meetings and has The option to vote on the proposals.

Committee members would discuss areas of concern and if things are going well wouldn't really have much else to do. If a committee member wishes to propose a change to a policy, they would submit a document publicly that would be very structured to outline what they propose to change, why they think it needs to be changed and their supporting research.

Members as well as the general public would have until the next committee meeting to review the proposal. Any member in opposition to the proposal would have a set time to file a document outlining their disagreement with their proposed alternative.

At the next meeting, the member that proposed the change would be given 5 minutes to present their proposal. The opposing members are given their 5 minutes for rebuttals.

After speaker presentations, all decisions are put to a vote, available in real time to the entire ship, open to all that choose to vote.

Votes are open for a period of 6 hours where all citizens can take the time to openly discuss the topics and make their decision and cast their vote.

During the voting period, committee volunteers who wish to open a new topic for the next committee meeting would submit their digital document, outlining their proposal to the other committee members for review.

Those proposals are then the voted on topics for the next meeting and the person that submitted the proposal is again the speaker and the cycle repeats.

Once the vote is complete, the majority rules and the decision is made but if a citizen strongly opposes the decision, they can appeal it by filing a document stating their reason along With a minimum of 1000 signatures of other citizens that oppose the change. If appealed, the citizen who files the appeal must submit the alternitive proposal in the same full detail publicly as well as to the other members to schedule their chance to speak and put the alternative to a second vote.

I realize this would be chaos in a massage population but if we are talking about building a nation in space, there is a limit to how big we can go. I wouldn't expect a population much greater than a million people on a single ship. At that population level this is very possible, especially when utilizing technology to connect people to policy.

Please note that I am aware that this explanation is oversimplified and that many other big and innovative changes need to be made in order for this to work and am hoping constructively discuss those issues and come up with solutions.

Why I am so passionate about this idea?

Eliminates corruption at every political level

Gives all citizens who wish to partisapate, an equal voice.

Full 100% transparency And accountability

Reactive, immediate policy change to reflect immediate needs.

No costly and disruptive electoral campaigns with broken promises, destructive propaganda

No chance of hidden political agenda because rather than voting on a party with hopes of them representing your best interests, you represent your best interests.

No inflated government salaries, eliminating financial motivation in political policy.

No division of Left and Right

Not having to choose the lessor of 2 evils.

This idea is not perfect but if you look at all the forms of government on earth today, none of them are working and the world in in chaos. We have here, the greatest opportunity in the history of civilization, to hit reset and truly guid humanity into the future. Repeating old mistakes in insanity.

Please open your mind and realize that this idea isn't new and with a collaboration of minds like ours, we can make a system like this work and become the blueprint for a truly advanced civilization .

Thank you for taking the time to read this and I welcome your ideas, questions and criticism. After all, that's why we're here isn't it?

Terry Foster

Cap 22, 00 / Dec 23, 16 20:10 UTC

To answer a few questions I received in a previous discussion I'd like to add a few things

Q. If anyone can volunteer for the committee wouldn't it get bogged down by different opinions?

A. With committee meeting for every sector and different people volunteering for different committees, with a small population as I would expect Asgardia to be, I doubt there are a huge amount of people that are committed to any one specific sector enough to dedicate the time required to do The job.

Q. If anyone can volunteer, wouldn't the committee be populated with people that are I'll informed?

A. I believe that if someone is an expert in their field, they are more likely to be the ones dedicating the time and research required for policy making that directly affects their field. As for volunteers who are not experts, we gain knowledge through experience and I would think that if someone is passionate enough about a specific sector that they would commit to the procedure of policy making, that they would be learning from the experts hands on and therefore they do become well educated in the policy making process of that sector.

Q. Couldn't someone stack the committee with supporters in order to push agendas?

A. With the vote being open to all citizens, proposals being well structured so that there's no way to hide agendas and no limit to the amount of committee volunteers, it is impossible to corrupt this system.

Q. Wouldn't this make long term planning impossible?

A. No. In fact if anything it should improve long term planning because things change and this allows for policy to change and evolve with the needs of citizens without the red tape or waiting for the next election for a change to be made. It is a reactive government and can easily adapt.

Cap 22, 00 / Dec 23, 16 21:03 UTC

To Tfoster :

I see some difficulties in what your propose, based on my own political experience :

  • A stable and constructive state policy has to follow a "line of government", or it won't work at all. I like the idea of commitees of expert, to prepare for example the projects of law, but this committees musn't have the power to decide, just to prepare the law to be voted. This vote could be done by all, or much better by people who has at least basic knowledge in the matter, or even by representatives has in most modern democracy. I personally prefer the second choice.

  • All stable government has to be ruled by a few people comparing to the all population. Otherwise it generate chaos. Why? There is some example in history, but let's just explain that the power, which is to remember the faculty to make things really happens, must be concentrated in a few hands. Not too few and not too much power. Of course this power has to be monitored and may be revoke, but actually any system in which the power is too diluted in too much individuals will exactly cancel to possibility to do things with efficiency, and therefore things won't be made efficiently and this government won't work.

I mean there is some very good idea in your proposal, I try ti adjust to the realities of politic.

Cap 22, 00 / Dec 23, 16 22:00 UTC

Yes, I also vote for Democratic-Technocracy.

Cap 22, 00 / Dec 23, 16 22:00 UTC

Sir Credric

Thank you for your avid argument. So we are on the same page on experts researching and preparing the proposals for policy change but not on the levels of government.

In my proposed scenario, with multiple committees handling the affairs of specific needs, why do the decisions need to filter up to another level of government? Especially when it is the committee that is doing the research and forming the policy? If all citizens are able to vote on policies, what would the purpose be of the upper levels of government? Why is their decision more important than the experts in the field?

Please excuse my lack of first hand knowledge, I'm just trying to look at the system as a clean slate. Politics is not my specialty but designing systems and controls for large corporations is and essentially I'm looking at it from a systems point of view. You create a system that does most of the job with the intention of removing unneeded human interaction because simply put, "systems run businesses, managers manage people" so if you can look at it in the way of setting the system up to work for you, could You not account for any issues with proper planning?

Please know that I'm not a know it all and am learning as I contribute to the cause. I'm only trying to spark alternative thought on a system that needs the fat cut out.

Cap 22, 00 / Dec 23, 16 22:20 UTC

Dear Tfoster,

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to answer your questions briefly:

why do the decisions need to filter up to another level of government? If all citizens are able to vote on policies, what would the purpose be of the upper levels of government? Why is their decision more important than the experts in the field? "Because without a general coordination, except for decisions that only affect that particular area, parts of the same government can act against each other interest, and as a government act against the common good without even being conscious to do so. That's why you need coordination on general policies."

Example: Your education committee vote that all the studies cost must be halved for everyone this year to encourage students to register. While your economic committee counted on these educations incomes to implement a new scientific project this year asked by the science committee....

This example is a bit exaggerated but You understand what I mean. A superior level must coordinate policies in a higher level than just a group of experts.

In the model I propose, most of the decisions are made by government members(elected group which is assisted by experts), not directly by citizens, BUT citizens may oppose a decision they sees as negative by forcing a vote on that specifically question. It means that an elected corp (government) assisted by experts has the ordinary power, but this power is tempered with the possibility for citizen to block wrong decisions. It would avoid what we see in modern democracies: Once you elect the politician, he do what he want and think, even if you're not agree. It is what I call semi-direct democracy: People are involved in surveying the government on each decision, but don't make direct decisions themselves (but the may propose projects, laws,... to the representatives)

Cap 23, 00 / Dec 24, 16 07:10 UTC

I believe that it is right for professional people to do professional work. I hope that the Government will operate in a democratic and transparent manner.

Cap 23, 00 / Dec 24, 16 22:43 UTC

Even with more than a million citizens, it's still possible for them to decide for themselves. Via a forum structure such as this, we can argue amongst ourselves upon the various merits concerning decisions for a set period of time - assuming this is nothing desperately urgent - and then collectively vote.

I'll agree with the opposition to decisions principle, but think it should be set as a % instead of a solid number. Say 60%. To assume that up until the next elections at least the 1'st 100k have a say, then one hundred would be only 1% or so - and not a good representation of the larger societies veiws. 1000/600,000 is pretty insignificant. When population expands greatly, it will be even lesser significant.

I think proposal for dismissal should also require greater than 1000 people - again a fixed percentage, 60% sounds like a good minimal.

I believe a structure should develop wherin individuals make their own decisions, on the subjects that interest or effect them. The existing ministerial structure remaining loosely in order to sectionalise, but forming councils comprised of anyone willing to attend - then the role of the ministers would be akin to that of mods in forums. Keeping conversation on topic and towards productive means. An adjudicator ensuring productive conversation, and in cases where no clear agreements can be reached, the arbiter of the ultimate decision. Topics can be discussed for a fixed period of time - say for sake of argument 30 days - in the case of non-emergency issues with emergency issues having the longest sensible window, and where immediate action is required to prevent loss of life etc, the minister making the descision on behalf of the group with further review by the relevent council at the earliest practical time. I would further envision an additional layer, an "Asgardian high council" (quite how to decide who these are I haven't lent much thought, beyond Igor should get himself a permanent position). Their purpose is to function as another layer of appeal in various applicable cases, but primarilly to facilitiate interactions betweeen the ministries - each high council member having one to focus on, knowing what they're working on preventing conflicts of interest between the ministries and deciding generally deciding what each individual ministry should be working on next - potentially deciding from accepted proposals submitted by the community as a whole, leaving the ministries themselves - and by extension the greater populous - to sort it out themselves between themselves - put forwards their ideas, argue the merits for and against for various presented solutions until the point of vote.

I undestand this isn't a highly detailed roadmap, more of a loose overview of what I would view to appropriate to both ensure the things that need doing get done, and ensuring that what actually gets done is what citizens would generally want done whilst adressing various concerns regarding corruption etc that cripple the existing Earth political systems.

Witholding a vote from some who's views you would feel are misguided or uneducated is a poor direction to begin thinking. It would be better to educate them on their deficits, help them understand why their current held views are inadequate - the better ideas do tend to stand out from the pile and the greater number will notice this, or in my experience this is the common outcome.

  Updated  on Cap 23, 00 / Dec 24, 16 22:52 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times
Reason: typo, additional data.

Cap 23, 00 / Dec 24, 16 23:23 UTC

I'm with tfoster on this one. People are too focused on copying established Earth governments without recognizing the depth to which centalized power has failed our species throughout the ages. I am vehemently opposed to elected representatives in an Electoral College style system. America has demonstrated how badly that works out. Minimalist government in every area, attempt to educate and maximise popular participation at all times. Government doesnt have to be a boring, drawn-out, separated process designed to keep power in and attention out, it can be a fun and enjoyable community exercise.

  Last edited by:  Jacob Simpson (Asgardian)  on Cap 23, 00 / Dec 24, 16 23:25 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: words

Cap 25, 00 / Dec 26, 16 16:20 UTC

I advocate for a resource based economy. It's a moneyless economy that doesn't need a government. Inspired by the writings of Jacque Fresco.

And to quote Jacque "You don't need government. What you need is information regarding food, information regarding taste and availability. When the public has access to information, they can better inform themselves as to what seems to promote healthy growth."

More information on a Resource Based Economy. "A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few" http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Resource-Based_Economy

Cap 25, 00 / Dec 26, 16 16:20 UTC

I advocate for a resource based economy. It's a moneyless economy that doesn't need a government. Inspired by the writings of Jacque Fresco.

And to quote Jacque "You don't need government. What you need is information regarding food, information regarding taste and availability. When the public has access to information, they can better inform themselves as to what seems to promote healthy growth."

More information on a Resource Based Economy. "A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few" http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Resource-Based_Economy

Cap 26, 00 / Dec 27, 16 04:50 UTC

Eventually I would see us hititng a "resource based economy" - But to get there it's almost assuredly going to require money. The link you provide makes a fatal assumption that the Earth is endowed with "plentyful resource" - compared to the resources of space, it's but an insignificant speck. However, we've just got to take the ones in space... Tock follows tick... It's just time. Ofc the sooner we act on that, the sooner we will reap the rewards.

I also feel there's little requirement for a government - at least as the concept is currently commonly understood. It's something we can generally do for ourselves as a collective.