Can 06, 01 / May 26, 17 18:25 UTC


While we do appreciate and share your concerns for our Constitution, a better forum for your discussion would be on the current post specifically for the Constitution Draft. This post will be closed, to be continued in the appropriate location. Thank you for understanding. 

Can 06, 01 / May 26, 17 18:59 UTC

Well... "we still can fight": it depends. :-D
Past a certain point, I think to fight someone who have all buttons on his side, to rule "his own property" becomes unuseful, exactly the same way you just can't force Mr. William Gates III to make a better operating system, if he thinks (have thought, early in 1990) "Windows exactly fits my needs", whatever those "needs" are/was (may I guess "more money"?): it's his company, after all. Having him collected money from all around the world, can you really say he was "wrong" when planned releasing windoze?
At most we can say "we're of different idea" but, as the physical levers are all into his hands... I've great doubts we can succeed in forcing His Real Majesty in agreeing with us.
That's mainly why, in another thread, I spoke about the ones who plays football and, at a certain poin, they come up with "ehy, the ball is mine!" sentence: chances are they will keep the ball, but even they'll have to play alone.
(translation: "we're all equal, but someone is more equal than others")

If I've been an Asgardia Colony inhabitant, all that was different for sure: I had to fight for my life, for asgardians' life, and then, yes, there was very strong reasons to fight.
But now... look at the whole thing from a distant place for a moment: we're here to join "something which seems interesting"... "as long as it really is interesting": no one can force us to enter into a trap, right?

At the moment, I suspect to cope with UN and media "ethic principles" so to have their recognition, he is asking our (free) vote.
He is pretending to ask our opinion on things we (may) go voting, but evidences told he doesn't care that much (DoU, motto, Constitution... you know).
We know, from the references you made me thought to go reading, he is able to swim into very dangerous waters (waters we even can't imagine, I guess).
No one, as Phicksur pointed out very well, is able to certify that "true person votes" will be used.
As I pointed out, sure not being the first, here there are "some problems" in defining next voting procedure's "quorum" so, descending from that, the "number of valid results". And, in the same thread, as @Clive pointed out, we even don't know what will happen in both cases of the Constitution will be rejected or approved with any kind of "majority".
In the main Constitution's thread someone wrote "I'm in the habit of assuming the best of intentions (...)", but that's absolutely wrong, in my opinion: as the Constitution is the angular stone of the whole nation, one must think at the very worst things that can be done, following it's dictates, as the "nice things" rarely will develop as "a problem" while bad ones, if can be done, will be "constitutional" also... and we can't afford it.

From what I can know, at now, the real reason behind all the circus may be to form a (legal) nation, in whatever way, and to sell to that nation a number of S-400/S-500 to arm "urbocops" (translation: "to meet Asgardia's constitutional mission" ;-)) and to force us to pay for that (taxes): as soon as we'll need those missiles (and the King will be the sole ruler to know how much we'll need them) he'll find "someone" eager to sell them to Asgardia... at a reasonable price. ;-)
Well... it sounds Sci-Fi, right?.. but tell me that's impossible to happen. ;-)
Without us there will be no one who can pay taxes... exactly the same as mexican people are a need to Trump's "wall projects". ;-)

Political fiction apart, I've to agree on your other sentences about psychology of the masses and neurolinguistic programming, for the few I know them: there seems to be all the needed key points, and from the very beginning.
But, that apart, in which way you think we, the "illuminati" (permit me to laugh ;-)), can (or even should) save the 179.900 ones, if they don't want, or even don't care, to be saved? My concept of "freedom and respect of others' will" forbid me to interfere into others' decisions (and even in-decisions): they will vote whatever way they'll like to, placing their heads in the lion's mouth. I'll just look at something different to do.

So, all apart, I'm here, up to the point it will be extremely clear, to one side or the other, this "space nation" will be a democracy or a(n ereditary) monarchy, up to the point our opinions will be taken in count or not, up to the point we'll form a Parliament with legal powers to make laws or we'll have a king who will take on his shoulders all decisional burden, leaving us free to play tic-tac-toe... and to pay taxes, obviously! ;-)

Yes, I slept, thank you for asking. ;-)