Jan 22, 17 / Aqu 22, 01 03:02 UTC

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

I would strongly opt. for a mix. The foundation should be a Democracy

Some points should be a Meritocracy 1. A world in which every child gets an equal chance to succeed in life. 2. The abolishment of party politics. 3. A radically reformed educational system, based on the MBTI personality types. 4. The end of nepotism, cronyism, discrimination, privilege and unequal chances.

Some parts should involve Technocracy. 1. Where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge (This should be combined with democracy, ex.: to qualify for a certain position you need to have (Baseline) knowledge in that particular filed ex. someone with no knowledge as a farmer shouldn't be a minister of agriculture )

Also we should have an Presidential Rebuplic system.

Jan 23, 17 / Aqu 23, 01 00:23 UTC

what about a mix of Democracy and meritocracy. The best of those from each feild are voted on to lead those feilds. Each person gets equal education, equal opertunities. those taht excell can potentially be the leaders who are in touch with what is needed for their feilds. But being the best isn't the only requirement, they need to pass a voting of their feild in order to represent that feild.

Jan 23, 17 / Aqu 23, 01 04:35 UTC

While clearly not the perfect form of government, a democracy excludes no one, nor should anyone be excluded from the ability to govern should the people feel they have the capability. By creating an oligarchy, power is put into too few hands, a technocracy puts too much emphasis on advanced fields while potentially creating a negative stigma about "menial labor" that is essential for a society, and a meritocracy is neigh impossible to make sure those being moved up the chain are truly up to the tasks they will be required to do.

By fashioning a government with checks and balances in the style of the United States (albeit with a reduction of powers from the legislative branch, which is far too powerful), we have a government in which everyone has a voice through a representatives. To ensure that people don't just follow party lines, it should be forced to be a Non-partisan democracy so each voter must make an informed choice about their leaders instead of voting for one person because they're red and the other person belongs to the blue party.

Jan 23, 17 / Aqu 23, 01 06:46 UTC

A new space nation is the best way to change what's wrong with earth governments. I believe that if democracy is going to rule Asgardia it should be an improved democracy.

In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with current democracy is potential polarization of the people. 50+1 ℅ of the population should not rule the other 49℅, how can a person or a government work effectively if almost half the people is against it ? But we already know this, that's why in most democratic countries in order to approve a law it has to be supported by two thirds (or even more) of the Senate. We should embrace this in our new constitution and stablish that any popular election must be won by two thirds or three quarters of the voting population. It certainly will not be easy but it would be the real voice of the majority speaking on behalf of the people instead of just a bit more than half.

The second biggest problem in our democracy is that people do not vote! I really can't believe how people can just say 'i don't feel like voting today' or something like that and create silly excuses to stay home on voting day. We should impose an obligatory duty to vote. Democracy can't work if people do not vote and it is something we can see happening in several countries around the world. If we are going to live in a democracy it must be obligatory to vote, it is the only way it will work.

Feb 10, 17 / Pis 13, 01 03:48 UTC

RE: markjcooke – Geniocracy I understand it might look like a ruling class at first. But think about this, we ask professionals in every field for credentials that they obtained basically through tests in universities. Let’s say a person really wants to be a doctor, this person wants it more than anything in life, but it turns out he/she can’t stand blood and is too nervous to practice surgery. But this person has the best intentions to save lives; now, Should this person be allow to be a doctor and surgeon just because he/she has the best intensions, just because this person has studied a lot despite the fact that can’t operate? Of course not!, not a single sane person will let this doctor operate them knowing this. So why don’t we ask the same for politicians? Isn’t high intelligence the minimum requirement to ask? Anybody can apply to serve the people but they have to be the most intelligent ones and they would be chosen by the above average intelligent people and at the same time they would be connected to the average intelligent people in many levels that will guarantee no corruption. There are more average intelligent people than highly or below average intelligent people, so the majority of people want the best for everybody that’s why they would choose the most intelligent people to solve the problems the best way possible. About the arts and humanities; well, geniuses are everywhere, scientists, artists, technicians, housewives, workers, etc. In the book it’s explained that the artists would form the “council of creatives” that would have a direct influence in the selection of geniuses in government. The criteria to select the geniuses have to be formulated from intelligent tests and features of intelligence provided by the most recent neuroscience discoveries. Everything in geniocracy is about pioneering work, just like Asgardia. It would be a great opportunity to put it in practice, because as asgardians we do not have the restraints that we have in our countries, we already are a nation without borders, this is the perfect moment to do it.

Feb 14, 17 / Pis 17, 01 08:56 UTC

After reading through this thread, we appear to be divided into three main camps. Those who favour a democracy, those who favour a meritocracy, and those who favour rule by measure of intelligence. Advocates of each position have presented arguments of variable efficacy in support of their individual factions and in opposition to others; yet, we seem to be no closer to a consensus than when we started this discourse. Perhaps, there is a happy medium which will satisfy the main concerns of each faction. In a humble attempt at this very goal I propose a new form of government incorporating the main tennets of each of these three forms of governemnt while at the same time reflecting the uniqueness of Asgardia and our fellow Asgardians.

To begin, Asgardian citizenship should be divided into three classes. I realize this may appear to fly in the face of democracy, but please stay with me. Each of these classes must be explictly hammered out irrevocably within our constitution to prevent future changes and should contain an article for each class defining the specific rights of a citizen of this class. The first class of citizen would would be applicable to children and new citizens only. Ideally, within the article defining this class a series of rights would be explicitly hammered out. For example, Asgardians with this level of citizenship would be entitled to freedom of thought, expression, religion, and communication in addition to the right to life, liberty, and property. Rights and freedoms may be added or removed and the extent of these freedoms debated before the final draft. However, Asgardians with this level of citizenship will not be entitled to vote or join a crew an idea which will be proposed later. Additionally, Asgardians with this level of citizenship are directly tied to another Asgardian. In the case of children, the parents whom the children are dependent on must be an Asgardian with second level citizenship. New citizens must have a sponsor. Asgardians not having obtained the second level citizenship are not permitted to serve in this capacity. The sponsor must co-sign legal documents in addition to the possibility of having certain authorities over the autonomy of the dependent Asgardian.

Asgardians with the second level of citizenship have both achieved a certain age and have been an Asgardian for a requisite period of time. They no longer need a sponsor to co-sign legal documents and have full autonomy over their decisions. All rights and freedoms of a first level citizen still apply to an Asgardian of second level. Second level Asgardians still are not permitted to vote or join a crew; however, they are permitted to take a test designed by what will hopefully be the ministry of education to test general competence compared to asgardian standards. Passing this test will allow an Asgardian to take on the third level of citizenship.

The third level of citizenship will be those educated to the national standard. These indivduals will have demonstrated sufficient competency in all areas on the national test. The standard WILL NOT be the average score; instead, it will test for those who are competent in a wide variety of intellectusl pursuits and award a composite score. Those having achieved the requisite score will be awarded third level citizenship. Third level Asgardians are entitled to all rights and freedoms of the second level. Additionally, they are permitted to join a crew.

A crew will be a group of united Asgardians striving to a common purpose. A crew will work as the lowest level of government as well as a voting block. A crew will be led by a Research leader elected on an interval of four years and shall not be subject to recall. Each crew must consist of atleast twenty five members but no more than fifty. When national votes are required each crew will have one vote which will be cast by the crew leader. Each crew is permitted to create their own by laws but must register and receive approval from a supreme crew to form.

In summary Asgardians who contribute to voting will be educated to national standards.

The government hierarchy is as follows: 1. A Supreme council/assembly/crew-comparable to congress. The supreme council/Assembly/crew will establish their own by laws and will be permitted to edit them every eight years. The supreme council/Assembly/crew will be made up of lower crew leaders each of whom will have one vote in any vote.

  1. Local Council/Assembly/Crew: Consists of 25-50 third level Asgardians permitted to form their own bylaws and elects a leader who represents their interests at supreme.

Sorry, it became less specific towards the end. I found my time cut short. I look forward to replying to your replies.

Feb 14, 17 / Pis 17, 01 09:14 UTC

Though I am lacking time I felt compelled to reply to your post.

Oringal post: "As a Lawyer and Legalist, I prefer (with NO doubts!) a DIRECT DEMOCRACY and and non-representative. It would be the BEST way for Asgardia.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about!



With respect Leonardo, I do not trust you. You advocate for a direct democracy; yet, like a monarch you cling to your credentials of authority and claim to know what is BEST for Asgardia. To be plain, you essentially said "I know what is best for everyone trust me I am an expert" this goes contrary to the basic precepts of democracy. Namely, The People are intelligent enough to make informed decisions by the power of the own deliberation and of their own volition.

I am not inherently against a direct democracy instead of a merit/expert or republican system. However, I expect you would show each of us the courtesy to present arguments in this arena of public discourse which we can then judge the merit of. If the system you advocate is truly the BEST system it should be able to withstand the intellectual rigor each of us can bring against it.

Rephrased, irrelevant to and regardless of your background as a lawyer, why is a direct democracy the ideal government?

Feb 15, 17 / Pis 18, 01 04:29 UTC

The system cited - direct democracy - would be the "best" system mostly for the reasons you'd highlight. It doesn't rely on "credentials", or "authority", instead relying on people being able to make intelligent educated decisions about their own life. The entire premise is own deliberation and own violation. Arena of public discourse leading to individual judgement of merits, and collective agreements. I'm certain it can withstand "intellectual rigor", it certainly seems to of so far, nothing anyone has been able to bring to the table so far previous in this thread, or the few others dedicated to that topic have shaken my faith in it - and one thing I'm really good at is spotting problems in things(and then exploiting them). It's a resilient system, deployed correctly.

I understand you feel the requirements for "better arguments" but quite frankly, only a small percentage have English as a native or primary language, and thusly quite probably lack sufficient diction to express themselves with requisite clarity.

With respect to the "three main camps" - As always, some people sway one way, and others another. But should you start counting up opinions, I'd wager the "direct democracy" crowd will be a significantly higher percentile. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the sense in it - and there's many reasons it makes sense. With regards to creating "levels of citizenship" I do not feel it wise to draw in extra societal borders and intrinsically creating "classes", one of which is an "elite ruling class". It isn't something anyone sane should be eager to stand under.

Feb 15, 17 / Pis 18, 01 17:54 UTC

I'd bet a lot of money that in the June election that if there is a democratic constitution, a meritocratic constitution, and a geniocratic constitution, the democratic one will win by a supermajority.

People tend to vote for their own enfranchisement. People also tend to view governments that enfranchise them as legitimate and governments that deem them too stupid to be adults as illegitimate.

And what the heck is with the class system proposal? One humanity, guys, not one humanity plus two semi-humanities. Any formal second class citizenry would make us a rogue nation in contravention of international laws. It's not just about what we would like, it's about building a nation that the world will accept.

Feb 15, 17 / Pis 18, 01 23:41 UTC

I have no doubt a democracy would win by a supermajority even when put against a democratic republic....People, when you get down to it, desire immediate rewards over a practical system. However, a true democracy will inevitably result in failure starting the second people realize they can just vote themselves whatever they want. The same process started in the United States when non-landowners were allowed to vote. In regards to eyeR's comments: Yes I am familiar with the benefits of a democracy, hence why I listed them. However, it is at the very least ironic and I would argue hypocritical for any individual to argue for democracy by calling to authority. Additionally, while you are right in regards to the clear language barrier many individuals suffer from the responsibility to defend and build your arguments lies ultimately with yourself.

Now onward to sammwich. 1. I agree in regards to your assesment of how things will proceed in June, though I hesitate to call that a good thing. 2. In regards to the classes of citizens.

A. There is no "Semi-humanity" but let us break it down. My first class if you can even really call it a class could very easilly be rephrased as the legal definition of a minor and is simply a realization our government will have children as citizens. By adding new citizens to this group, we can make sure there is an individual dedicated to helping them adapt. These individuals receive all recognized human rights and are only limited in voting and the ability to sign by themselves....As in their parent or guardian must sign for them. .... I think we can all agree children should not be allowed to vote.

The second level of citizenship has only two privleges minors do not.....They can sign without a parent or guardian and can take a test to be allowed to vote.

The third level of citizenship has only one privlege the second level does not. The third level can vote.

Note each level of citizenship still has their basic human rights, liberties, and freedoms recognized amd does not have more or less of these than any other level of citizenship.

The first level of citizenship reflects essentially every civilized country's policy on children. The only difference when you get down to it between the first and second is the ability to sign for themselves.

In regards to the difference between 2 and 3 it is no different than saying merit should lead. In fact, it is the asgardian equivalent of saying only those with property can vote. After all, Asgardians pride themselves on their intellect. This voting test does not make us a rouge nation in contravention of any international laws.

I can understand how my calling it a class system might upset some; however, when you get down to it my system is similar to what most nations currently use. It asks what defines a child and what can a child do, it defines who can and can not vote, and it protects the rights, liberties, and freedoms of all citizens.

Feb 16, 17 / Pis 19, 01 00:34 UTC

You're not addressing the elephant in the middle of your class system. Class systems are banned under the UHDR. Merely denying suffrage to the literal second class citizens does not resolve the problem. We would be an international pariah state immediately unless we find an enormous oil reserve in orbit that we can claim monopoly rights to and sell at a very favorable price to the permanent members of the UNSC.

That's not even considering how other nations will regard that we would be accepting immigrants, but legally treating them as children and denying them the right to engage in contracts. Bit difficult to sign a rental agreement without that right. But perhaps the state appointed guardian will not use the position to compel them to act as a live-in servant...

Also, "civilized"?

  Last edited by:  Michael Hoselton (Asgardian)  on Feb 16, 17 / Pis 19, 01 00:35 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Feb 16, 17 / Pis 19, 01 04:22 UTC

The system may be similar in conceptual form as many currently in place, but it has differences.

One of the more disturbing is: can take a test to be allowed to vote.

Although yes, after seeing the things some people can say/do it may seem on the outset to be a sane policy to restrict the capacity of these people to make any decision more important that what is going to end up in their sandwich at lunchtime - and I genuinely see the merits in this thinking - it is however deeply flawed and open to much abuse. It is not a path to start down for you will not like where it leads. Who decides the measure? for a start. It's definitely possible to use it as a "screening process" so you can only select the people that are going to be doing what you want. In a system claiming for unilaterial social responsibility it removes the decisive capacity from the masses and instead places it into the "elite" few who pass this "test".

With regards to minors, then of course it's more than likely them not being able to vote would be a good thing in the long term - that is not to say that their opinion is of no value. The ability to cast vote shouldn't be granted, but ability to take part in deliberations etc should be attributed as per any other citizen. Maybe one of them will have a better idea. With regards to "three classes" then the lesser boundaries and factions we draw between ourselves the more cohesively we can operate. Especially in the cold vast sea of space, you need to learn to work together. This is a lot easier for you to do if no-one is "special" due to being in some bracket, and thusly have lesser cause to pedestal themselves.

Feb 22, 17 / Pis 25, 01 00:53 UTC

It seems like it is possible to have a hybrid system which incorporates the best of the others in a system of checks and balances. For example, we may divide the government into three branches: the Demos (as expressed by popular referendum), the Head of State, and the Bureaucracy. Here is an example of how that might work:

  • The Head of State is elected for a five-year term by a popular vote. Only people who have served as a minister is eligible to run for the office. The Head of State chairs meetings of the council of ministers and approves new ministers.
  • The Demos has the ability to elect the Head of State and to recall government officials including ministers and the Head of State. The Demos also votes on laws through a popular referendum, perhaps laws that are drafted by the Ministry of Justice.
  • The Bureaucracy is made up of the 12 ministries and enacts policy. The Bureaucracy elects its own leaders from within each ministry with the approval of the Head of State, but those ministers are subject to recall from the Demos.

That's a pretty rough outline, and only one of several ways it could work. According to this outline, the Head of State represents autocracy, the Demos represents democracy, and the Bureaucracy represents technocracy.

Feb 22, 17 / Pis 25, 01 06:55 UTC

Still don't think it compares to the output of "direct democracy". It addresses far more issues, and yeilds lesser problems. It also doesn't artificially generate more divides where there isn't specific cause for.

Feb 22, 17 / Pis 25, 01 16:55 UTC

For the record, I have no desire to read through 7 pages of back and forth to find out what the hell is going on. I merely wish to ask one question:

What, exactly, is the plan to vote on the form of governance? Obviously, we will begin democratic, because EVERYONE is voting for the form of government.

Beyond that, what is the plan?