Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 02:08 UTC

Re: Which Legal System Should Asgardia Adopt?  

Civil law

Tau 05, 01 / Mar 30, 17 03:04 UTC

That is not an easy one to answer. I work within law enforcement / criminal justice system and often get frustrated with how the public interest can be set to one side because of something that was written, or not written, in a statute over 100 years ago has to be adhered to. Civil law can have difficulties keeping pace with technological / societal changes and (unfortunately) never truly independent of politics. Common law more reflects what most people would describe as "common sense" (ie. I injured you as a result of my negligence, therefore I should be responsible for your medical expenses and loss of income), but can become very complex and cumbersome under the weight of numerous, and often conflicting, precedents. Personally, I don't think customary law is something suited to a new nation, particularly if "there is no place for Earth history in Asgardia" :). Religious law... well don't get me started - apparently I offend people when religion is the topic.

My personal opinion is that the answer for a transparent legal system for Asgardia will have to be a more nimble and less politically influenced version of a civil system that has two distinct halves for criminal and non-criminal justice. In a perfect world, all adjudication would be undertaken by a true AI to remove all human errors and bias and also provide a full account of the consideration of evidence and evaluation of any penalty to any interested party. Admittedly, that is a long way from becoming a reality, but a guy can dream can't he?

Tau 07, 01 / Apr 1, 17 14:04 UTC

Civil Law and Common LAW are the only choices I see above. I prefer Civil Law.

Gem 05, 01 / Apr 27, 17 21:01 UTC

Плюралистические системы. Только эта форма сможет соответствовать требованиям мультикультуры будущей нации! 

Gem 19, 01 / May 11, 17 21:01 UTC

Ок Jason! Thank you

  Last edited by:  Alexander Loshkarov (Asgardian)  on Gem 19, 01 / May 11, 17 21:11 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Gem 20, 01 / May 12, 17 12:24 UTC

I prefer a more cellular law approach but I doubt it would work with our incoming Constitution.

Individuals band together into groups, or cells, where they have the laws they have laid down and adhere. Individuals may belong to any cell they desire but a cell must have at least ten adult persons in it. Individuals must be a member of a cell, and that cell must have some amount of laws written down they must follow, but the extent and degree of those laws is determined by the cell. Only behaviors may be targeted by cellular law. Cells with the same laws are considered the same cell.

Cells are then linked together into groups (I refer to them as colonies) which then may agree on collective laws which affect all cells belonging to this colony. Cells must belong to at least one colony. Colony laws follow the same rules as cellular laws with regards to what is allowed or restricted when cells/colonies/collectives interact. A new colony can only be established if at least 5 cells come together.

Colonies are merged together into collectives, using the same criteria. A new colony can only be established if 5 colonies come together.

Once you are a member of a cell, colony, or collective, you may only leave once per year, on the date of your birth. In this manner, a person has a great deal of personal freedom, while also having rights of association and 'tribal' membership. There are also special 'cells' for children, special needs individuals, and similar protected groups whose membership is voluntary. Adults make the decision into which cell their children belong until those children come of age.

Individuals may be members of multiple cells, but the rules for that are that 1) laws preventing a behavior trump all but national laws, 2)  Anything not specified in a law is allowed, 3) The laws of the nation trump all other laws. These same rules apply when members of cells interact with one another.

Example: Two people from two cells have a physical altercation (I shall call them Bobby and Joe). Bobby's cell believes that hitting each other is acceptable provided it isn't life threatening while Joe's cell is completely against violence. Under the rules above, the prevention of a behavior (violence) takes precedence so Bobby is in trouble and has violated the law. If Bobby had hit Jane, who is a member of his same cell, no violation of a law happened because their cell has determined that hitting each other is acceptable, unless either is a member of a colony or collective which has a rule saying that hitting each other is also prohibited.

AWA

  Updated  on Gem 20, 01 / May 12, 17 12:25 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Gem 25, 01 / May 17, 17 22:44 UTC

As much as I'd want a cellular system, Asgardia will be divided enough already by diversity, and a system like that would encourage division and fighting between groups. The political problems that currently plague our planet right now would slowly rear their ugly heads. Social minorities may end up being oppressed, and certain groups unhappy with national law could lead an attempted takeover or could attempt to split into another nation. While we can survive conflict on earth, conflict in a space station would probably be alot more dangerous. A set of easy to understand and follow, nonoppressive, respectable common written laws that could be made or changed by voting would be better to try at first.

Gem 26, 01 / May 18, 17 15:35 UTC

Civil law... with a common sense spray. ;-)

I mean: as it's very very cumbersome to define "all possibilities", under some level the common sense should substitute law articles.
That's usually what a judge does, knowing both law and common sense.

Can 18, 01 / Jun 7, 17 18:18 UTC

Civil Law. I am a lawyer and work in a state legal department. Law should be codified and predictable.

Can 19, 01 / Jun 8, 17 19:11 UTC

The base should be civil law. There is nothing more transparant than a codified set of rules, there for all to see. It ensures uniformity of law, which is critical for citizens as it enables them to understand and rely on it.

At the same time, judges should have the freedom to make their own decisions and be able to come up with the 'fairest' solution possible in the cases before them, in general accordance with the law. A mix of the two would therefore, in my opinion, be the best option for Asgardia, and is something we (again, my opinion) succesfully employ in the Netherlands.

Can 27, 01 / Jun 16, 17 11:51 UTC

civil law.

Leo 03, 01 / Jun 20, 17 14:22 UTC

I second Scarbs idea to have government run by an Artificial Intelligence designed for that purpose.   While this idea may seem at the moment to be far-fetched, it's actually far more likely that we'll have AI's that are smarter than humans before we have functioning space colonies.  An AI designed for this purpose will be more capable of making unbiased and informed decisions than any human, who comes with a lifetime of prejudice and a relatively limited capacity for intelligent thought compared to the super-intelligent AIs that are expected to be part of society within just a few decades.

In addition, I think it's crucial that an future society have a good plan for dealing with the mental illness of its citizens, especially the 3-4% of sociopaths/psychopaths that are born without a conscience.  Such people tend to master skills of manipulation and false charisma.  They often seek positions of power, and enjoy constant conflict.  Many end up being lawyers, politicians, and CEOs, if they don't end up in prison first.  Such personalities can and do have a place in society, excelling at jobs that require the suspension of fear and emotion, such as being warriors, an EMT, or surgeon, but in my opinion, devoid of any empathy, they should be kept out of positions of real power over others.

One might reason that the two statements above could be in conflict in a way, in that an AI could be seen as an intelligence without true empathy.   It would therefore be very important to design an AI used for this purpose to uphold the best of humankind's values and train/test it extensively in all types of outlier situations.

And one more thing, Asgardia should have a discussion about the role and legality of transhumanism.  Will humans have the right to modify and enhance their own bodies and brains?  I think they should, and more importantly, I think this is of crucial importance to be able to survive in space or have any hope of experiencing the universe far beyond earth.  Within 50-80 years we should be able to digitize our intelligence and upload it into an artificial body that can survive space radiation.  We should also be able to beam our intelligence to host bodies, at the speed of light, to experience other worlds.  The idea of trying to send a meat body to anywhere outside of our solar system is a Hollywood fantasy that's never going to happen.


Leo 07, 01 / Jun 24, 17 18:19 UTC

Civil law for anything of importance and common law for petty crimes.

Sco 05, 01 / Sep 14, 17 11:01 UTC

First do no harm.

All are equal.

When one governs one's self,

Respecting Earth, Nature, and Others,

No Laws are required.

(Alfie's Law)

Sco 05, 01 / Sep 14, 17 11:22 UTC

Yes, a simple public law-system for the public and a complicated lawyer law-system for the lawyers.

Dirk.