I agree that the constitution of Asgardia does not seem like a Kingdom.  There is no King.  There should not be a King.

The supreme values of Asgardia specifically 4b, 4e and 4l are not well served if Asgardia is a Kingdom.

Agreed, 'kingdom' should be replaced with something more fitting, but Republic has the same issue in that it forces a certain governmental type. State works in that it does cover monarchies, republics, theocracies and potentially other forms.

'Head of Nation' as a title (Head of Nation Ashurbeyli) is a little odd, certainly, but it has drawn away from being termed either King or President, both of which are usually attributed to hereditary and elective forms of succession respectively (though could be used for other forms anyway, see Elective Monarchy). Operator also has an oddity to it, but it is true that it has an inherant responsibility behind it.

On the note of whether Asgardia should be a kingdom or not is one of key importance too. Its founder appears to have expressed wishes to be so, but has not crowned himself King. The concept of despotism has been brought up and this is compatible with both monarchism and republicism, just as a purely democratic system is compatible with both. The eventuality of which Asgardia will become is unknown at this point, but democracy has been a major philosophy of our nation, so its unlikely to be despotic.

The pure difference between a monarchy and a republic is actually very slim, and is usually only denoted by the head of state being termed something royal-esque (eg King, Emperor, Duke, something 'peer'-ish). In our case, that is not the case, and so it is essentially a republic, with Ashurbeyli as our head of state.

Some will state that free elections or democracy are essential in a republic, or that they are impossible in a monarchy, but both have historically been disproven. The opposing side with hereditary succession not existing in a republic, or that being the only form of succession in a monarchy, are also untrue in some even modern Earthly nation states.

The rejection of monarchism should not be outrightly rejected without consideration for how it is to be implemented, but I do feel that the name of this nation Asgardia should be timeless and not be limited to its governmental form.

I totally agree with you. We must be a presidential Republic, and the original "Kingdom" implies the meaning of monarchy. As everyone knows, the constitution is the parent law, if there are loopholes in the constitution, the consequences be unbearable to contemplate, so we should not be the monarchy but a republic, if not to amend the constitution, I fear some ill intentioned ambition to exploit these vulnerabilities to destroy our country, so this is a very serious thing.

我完全同意你的观点，我们必须是一个总统制共和国，而原文的“Kingdom”暗含君主制的含义。众所周知，宪法是母法，如果宪法有漏洞，后果不堪设想，所以我们不应该是君主制而是共和制，如果不修改宪法，我担心一些居心不良的野心家利用这些漏洞来破坏我们的国家，所以这是一件非常严肃的事情。

Agreed on "State", but unsure of "Operator". E.g., Mr. Ashurbeyli meets with another head of state and is introduced as "Operator Ashurbeyli"...! The Constitution sounds quite like a presidential system, so why not the straightforward "President" (who presides over the Government)? Of course, then, the "Ministers" will need to become "Secretaries".

Alternatively, it can just be "Premier". E.g., Premier Ashurbeyli. No earful there :-)

I don`t understand the Russian, and the meanings in the constitution are totally different in different languages. Many ideas could not clearly showed up. In my personal view, Asgardia is likely a international community rather than a country, since it is impossible for Asgardia to be recognized by the existing countries.  There is no doubt that "Republic" or "United" must be better than "Kingdom". If Asgardia become a Kingdom, who will become the royal family?

我看不懂俄文，不同语言版本的宪法表达了完全不同的意思，许多思想内涵难以被清晰地表达。我个人认为，Asgardia更像是一个国际化社区，而不是一个国家，因为它几乎不可能被现有国家所认同。不容置疑的是，共和制或联合制必将比王国更合适。如果Asgardia成为一个王国，那么谁将会成为王室成员呢？

我睇唔明俄文，唔同语言版本嘅宪法表达咗唔同嘅意思，好多思想内涵都难以被清晰噉表达。我个人认为，Asgardia更似系一个国际化社區，而唔系一个国家，因为佢几乎唔可能畀现有国家所认同。不容置疑嘅系，共和制或者联合制必将好过王国。如果Asgardia成为一个王国，咁边个将会成为王室人员呢？

No estoy de acuerdo con ustedes, hoy día los reinos estan mejor constituidos, mejor controlados y más democráticos que la misma república, como bien ha explicado Asgardía los sistemas monárquicos como el de Reino Unido y a su vez los países que están bajo la supervisión de la corona inglesa, han sido democracias mejor constituidas que las repúblicas, además lo bueno de la constitución de Asgardia, es que el jefe de estado ejerce control sobre el poder público, respetando la constitución, y a su vez los poderes públicos ejercen control sobre el jefe de la nación.
El fundador merece ser el monarca del Reino unido de Asgardia, pues el es el fundador, y es él en gran medida el que ha hecho posible los actuales avances de Asgardia.

Que viva el Reino de Asgardia.

Agreed, I support the amendment to State or Nation. Kingdom implies ruler rather than a leader.

I am happy to be a citizen, but I am not prepared to be a servant, for which the inhabitants of a kingdom are servants of the monarchy.

Lead by example, don't rule from above.

It will continue to strike me as odd that they promote Asgardia as a democracy publicly, but a Kingdom in and only in its constitution. The constitution states that Asgardia is a kingdom but the head of nation, Igor, is to be replaced in 5 years after the official adoption anyways, why would Asgardia be a kingdom without a king and what prevents them from defining Asgardia as a different form of nation?

I have signed this petition, but I believe more needs to be done to prevent them from forcing this constitution through as they are presently.

The language  of the constitution translates poorly into English. This is not so much because the word for word translation is wrong, it is because words like "supreme leader" and "kingdom carry heavy, unpleasant connotations in the West and other places.  Right or wrong, the Supreme Leader needs to be aware of the role that semantics plays in human communications.  The wording needs to be less charged over all.  That aside, I think the constitution needs some major repair work.  It's too long, it's too specific (yes, too specific).  A constitution is a blue print for future legislation, and defines a Nation.  What needs to be more specific is the mechanisim for changing the constitution, and the ability to vote NO listed as the first ammendment.  I don't agree with the specifics of this proposeal, but I do agree with the spirit of the proposeal.

I agree (but shucks, there goes my hope of elected Kingship, had all the speeches and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do edicts ready too!).

Joking aside, it's Democracy (proper, unadulterated, unleavened, and unsalted) for me thank you very much :)

It threw me a bit reading 'Kingdom' too, doesn't belong with our current understanding of 'Kingdom' being so negative (though for balance I would like to point out that it is entirely possible to be happy in a benign dictatorship too).

It's not the form a government takes that causes the problems, it's the public perception of that form, and how that government behaves, that makes for negative and positive connotations. For example, there can also be bad democracy (which is currently what the rest of the world is subject to).

When it comes to types of rulership, it should be noted that Aristotle was not wrong. He claimed that there can only be 3 types of rulership (in all existence), he never said any of them were bad, only that there is only the possibility of 3. Those three are ;

1) Monarchy - Rulership by One, Over Everyone.

2) Oligarchy - Rulership by Several, Over Everyone.

3) Democracy - Rulership by Everyone, For Everyone.

In my opinion,

1) is not possible unless there is 1 Supreme being who cannot be challenged in any way, and does not need others to support their rulership (God is such a character, but there is to this day much debate as to whether God is real or fantasy), and as such is only provable by it's actual revelation, so 1) is currently unprovable.

2) Oligarchies are the most common form of government throughout history, and I would argue that many so called Despots, Kings and other solo rulers, are in fact Oligarchies, by dint of the fact that they were human beings who needed the support and Military protection of many in order to rule, and as such are influenced by those around them, so not true Monarchs, in the Aristotelian sense.

3) Democracy is what we are told very often we have, but none of us live in a Democracy, because Democracy is not about voting in a bunch of Oligarchs to rule us, but US making the rules for our collective benefit.

Here is another problem, real Democracy is also Communism, Socialism, and Anarchy, all of which are concepts which deal with the idea that the masses can rule for the masses, that we are all responsible. Sadly though, current thinking has changed the meanings of these things, and so now Communism, Socialism, and Anarchy always get lumped in with Dictators and other bad-sounding (and actually bad) types, when in fact they were never meant to be.

The point, I suppose, is to highlight an important fact, and that is that corruption is what ruins all of these rulerships, and in principle at least, all of them should have worked for our benefit, but they haven't because the ideas, then the people became corrupted.

我觉得现阶段讨论的国王和独裁等内容没有多少意义，世界是发展的，也许未来不一样了呢？我们在创造另外一个国家，开创一个全新的体系，使用现阶段的词汇来说明未来的事情是不是有些不合适呢？

I think the content of the king and dictatorship discussed at this stage does not make much sense. The world is developing. Maybe the future is different Were we creating another country, creating a whole new system, and using current words to illustrate the future?

私は現段階では議論の国王と独裁などの内容はあまり意味、世界は発展しているかもしれないが、未来のようではないか。作ってまた一つの国として、新しいシステムを使って、現段階の語彙を説明して未来の事はちょっと合わないだろうか。