Jan 1, 17 / Aqu 01, 01 15:43 UTC

Re: [Official Post] Writing a valid Constitution : Step 2 - Type of Government  

I agree, all Asgardians should be educated(there's already demonstrated requirement for) however I don't feel this should be a requirement to help decide their own fate.

In an evironment where before actually deciding on a matter it is discussed, then the act of the discussion itself should serve to impart information as those with more knowledge in the applicable field counter unwise suggestions with sense, and put to rest rediculous concepts with maths and logic. Each should be afforded their input - but typically it's only the people that actually make sense that will be listened to, when you come to make your descision.

Jan 1, 17 / Aqu 01, 01 19:07 UTC

Everyone should know that the constitution as well as the other laws of a country form the set of rules that we can call the border of the nation. Those who belong to such a society act within the boundaries, the rules, the laws, the constitution. Otherwise they are people trying to change rules aggressively or set out for an anarchic system. In a modern society it is so. I am not theorizing, this is what is happening in the world, everywhere today.

We are a nation, we need to know what kind of nation this will be. We need the constitution. The advantage when we create a quasi-theoretical space nation is that if the constitution does not please me I can give up my citizenship, which I can not do here in my country. So the first step towards creating a fictitious country constitution is for it to please its potential citizens.

Pleasing is a rather vague concept, it will depend on the horde of each person, for some the simple fact of having freedom is enough to please, see how many registered citizens came from countries with restricted freedom. So how should Asgardia be? Democracy, Technocracy, Meritocracy? Presidentialism, Parliamentary? Captalism, Socialism, Naturalism? Many options.

Jan 1, 17 / Aqu 01, 01 19:15 UTC

Let us analyze "Democracy", as a form of government choice only, is the kind of system in which at least two powers conflict, political power and media power, often both are playing on the same team, while the voter is In the adversary team, being persuaded to vote in this or that candidate for the influence of the media. In fact we do not know who we are voting for, we only know what the media exposes of the candidates. It's a media war, and we voters in the middle of the shooting. Who is good to get away with it? It's pure luck.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not.

Jan 1, 17 / Aqu 01, 01 19:29 UTC

Let's see "Meritocracy". Who decides whether or not a candidate deserves to run for the desired government position? An examining board? Older people? The richest? It would be difficult to decide who gets into the role of examiners. The most appropriate would be that all citizens could vote if a candidate deserves or does not run the elections. Technology for this is not lacking. What is missing is a mechanism capable of restricting the work of the media to what is strictly necessary for the candidate to present himself.

That is, promises are forbidden. A judgment made about the future, from promises, can only go wrong, since the future does not exist. Already a past judgment of each candidate, this could help in the right choice.

Unhappily or felicitously, the age of the voter completely changes his vote, a young voter has a certain electoral tendency, and an experienced, older voter has a different electoral tendency. I imagine that the weight of age can be computed in the end result easily by the online vote counting system.

In Meritocracy the vote of the elders has more weight than the vote of the younger ones. This is obvious.

Jan 1, 17 / Aqu 01, 01 20:16 UTC

An idea. There are no political parties. The positions of Ministers must be filled by means of a college entrance examination, that is, the candidates will undergo tests and tests of competence, as it happens in recruitment companies is selection of employees. In this way, we will always have the most qualified, and the mandate would be 4 years, with no possibility of re-election for that ministry. This will motivate all citizens to study and prepare to run for office. General elections only for 1st Minister.

Jan 1, 17 / Aqu 01, 01 23:29 UTC

I think we need a mix between the democracy and technocracy but, I think our politicians or leaders must be only take the ideas from something like this forum and write clear and then put the results laws from this ideas one by one and then using the actual online technology the asgadia people can choose what of that laws must be implemented in our nation.

Jan 2, 17 / Aqu 02, 01 08:22 UTC

While im entirely for a resource-based economy, this is the same mistake that led to our current terrestrial troubles to begin with: confusing economy with government. government is nothing more than an organizational tool for the will of the people it represents, we just need to ensure WE are the will it serves (key word right there - serves). Economic systems, while important to discuss, are not and shouldnt be discussed with systems of government.

  Last edited by:  Jacob Simpson (Asgardian)  on Jan 2, 17 / Aqu 02, 01 08:24 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Jan 2, 17 / Aqu 02, 01 12:10 UTC

We have to look at what is happening and thus set a course for the future of Asgardia. What happens is that Dr. Igor imagined a country in space. It is understandable since Dr. Igor is Russian, is a scientist in the area of ​​space technology and a name internationally known for his work. Thus was announced, in English, the foundations of the new nation in the world media and a website was created to gather sympathizers. Contests to choose flag, hymn, symbol, greeting, etc. A form for registering people who wish to be Asgardians and a cadastral numeric identity. Now a forum to give voice to the Asgardians, discuss important matters such as language, government and future projects. So far it has been a wonderful and impressive work by the number of people registered on the site, almost 600 thousand records.

Thus we began to dream together with Dr. Igor a country in space, a spatial nation, a people without borders. The union of all humanity in a project of life happier, more participatory, more modern, freer, more human, more interactive, without divisions, without borders, without hunger, without poverty, without discrimination, without despair.

But in fact we are living where we always live and will continue to live this way for a long time to come. So it is very difficult not to replicate local politics in a space project, so theoretical. We can only think about what we know. We do not want to replicate the same system, we want something different, with a success rate of around 99%, are difficult times and this reflects in our choices.

Now we are discussing a form of government. The first question is; Is this really necessary? The second question is; Govern what?

We are taking for granted questions that we still do not have answers, because we are replicating a historical situation lived on the earth for all the centuries but now being challenged, a nation in space is ALL DIFFERENT, EVERYTHING NEW.

I want to thank Dr. Igor for his vision of a better society and I want to contribute to this. But I do not have answers, as every scientist, although I'm not a scientist myself, I only have thousands of unanswered questions. Thank you Dr. Igor.

Jan 2, 17 / Aqu 02, 01 14:59 UTC

Yes, what we should be building isn't a replication of what already exists. But that's not to say it's anything new. There's very few "new" things, most at best being recycles and varients of existing methods/principles.

I firmly maintain "government" as the current concept is understood to be unrequired, the what it would be governing would be obviously ourselves - and equally obviously, we can collectively do this for ourselves.

To find answers, you would first require to provide questions. You might not have answers, but someone else might. The largest power of the intewebs is the way it allows minds to connect, and the combined product of this could theoretically solve almost any issues.

Jan 2, 17 / Aqu 02, 01 16:01 UTC

Thanks EyeR, you read my post and I read your post. I honestly have many questions. What is a nation in space? What do we have to govern? Depending on the answers, one type of government may be more efficient than others. When I compare with governments on the ground I want a democracy, no doubt, direct elections. But everyone knows that the reaction time of a democracy is slow, decisions are debated many times until decision making. This could endanger the lives of Asgardians living in the space station. In space as in the jungle slow decisions are a death sentence.

Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 00:45 UTC

A nation in space is like any other nation, in it's loosest concept, but in space. I take "nation" to mean " a collection of people with common characteristics".

What do we have to govern? nothing currently. But eventually, ourselves and the facilities we establish.

When I consider governmental models displayed on the ground, I would rather hack at my nuts with a rusty cheesegrater. It would likely cause less long-term damage. To assume by "democracy" you'd mean a real democracy(individuals making the descisions) as opposed to some republic(power residing in elected individuals "representing" the citizen body) advertised through propaganda as a democracy, then this has no comparision(that I am aware of, a few tribal communities aside)

To address your reaction time concerns, we really shouldn't have a great many "emergency" situations where there's not enough time to rationally decide as a collective. Well defined policy and procedure can deal with most eventualities. In the rare cases where immediate descision is required to mitigate loss of life, or functionality the operator(designation undetermined, "commander" sounds too military) responsible for a facility(and by extension, the lives of it's occupants) should have "powers" to act in any way they see fit in order to preserve life, and the function (in that order) of their facility, assuming this doesn't impact adherence to the constitution. One draft for the constitution I have read specifically mentions temporary evocation of rights assured by the constitution for such but measures taken under such guise are unable to be enacted for greater than 14 days without some form of court ruling on the matter, and regardless of time period, afterwards be subject to independant review to certify if such action was warrented, and if found to be the correct course of action, the specific actions taken whilst were in the best interests of the people. Such trials could also serve to build better guidelines of how to respond to various "emergency" situations.

I had proposed(somewhere, maybe further back in this thread, maybe another) some loose structure that involved all matters proceeding through the people, where this is practical in terms of time constraints. Concerns can be raised by appropriate ministry, and these can be left up as topics of discussion for 30 days(example time period, precise time period I'd be unsure of, longer is generally better but care must be taken to ensure this remains productive) during which almost everyone should be able to put forwards their views, or absorb information to assist in forming views. In cases where 30 days is impractical, the longest sensible time window. In cases where immediate descision is required to mitigate loss of life etc then minister of the appropriate ministry(who as a matter of responsibility requires to have some knowledge of applicable fields within) should make their best effort at a descision based on the knowledge provided, what their research into the specific situation can infer, and taking into account any points raised by other ministers(to assist in prevention of one action of a governmental branch acting in a way that would prohibit or endanger another). If there is sufficient time, they should definitely make effort to seek advise on the most "qualified" individuals in our number on that specific field(that'll be easier soon).

Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 02:12 UTC

A democratic system or similar, without political parties and without re-election. A system where all the Asgardians can portulate. A system where all Asgardians are educated in politics as basic adduction not to be deceived. This is what i try to say in my post aterio. I think it's the best option and it avoids electoral deception.

Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 20:17 UTC

I flatter myself EyeR for being arguing with you about a topic I'm no expert about and still being heard. A lawyer, a law expert, a constitutionalist might not have my concerns.

There are several ways to get it if you write the constitution of a country. The most usual is to elect a small group of interested people, a constituent assembly and they debate and finally vote a constitutional letter. I would supplement submitting the proposal to the popular vote.

Another way would be to build an online platform, I find it easy because of my experience with PHP and MYSQL, where all proposals would be voted by all Asgardians. We would have statistical parameters of analysis to evaluate which item would be included and which would be excluded at the end of the voting. I am in favor of the age vote, the older citizen more weight would have his vote. It is also easy to implement. I like this model. It has to be better detailed.

Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 20:18 UTC

I flatter myself EyeR for being arguing with you about a topic I'm no expert about and still being heard. A lawyer, a law expert, a constitutionalist might not have my concerns.

There are several ways to get it if you write the constitution of a country. The most usual is to elect a small group of interested people, a constituent assembly and they debate and finally vote a constitutional letter. I would supplement submitting the proposal to the popular vote.

Another way would be to build an online platform, I find it easy because of my experience with PHP and MYSQL, where all proposals would be voted by all Asgardians. We would have statistical parameters of analysis to evaluate which item would be included and which would be excluded at the end of the voting. I am in favor of the age vote, the older citizen more weight would have his vote. It is also easy to implement. I like this model. It has to be better detailed.

Jan 3, 17 / Aqu 03, 01 23:13 UTC

I would favour a digital system, as this favours our current distributed nature - and our likely continued distributed nature once we get into sapce. The precise technologies leveraged to achieve this I don't think are much of a concern at this time but it's likely to head in that direction.

I had operated under the assumption there would be some presumption of equality - this would require to extend to lack of favour as much as lack of disfavor for any given attribute. Age does not equate wisdom, but it does commonly equate experience. Lessons learned from these experiences can be relayed during the stage before voting - the part where people voice various concerns, provide more detailed explainations on concepts, and propose alternate solutions... When the "elders" see mistakes happening, they can point out what they are and why they are mistakes - much in the same way they have for countless generations, with increasing reverence towards the more tribal cultures.