Esta nación es deslumbrante en todas sus formas, nuestros derechos, una respetada y sus pedidos acordados pero que pasa si es una economía abierta y con diferentes medios de recaudación, no solo de forma tributaria, en la que se emplea una moneda sobrevalorada ante otras ¡y que el mar vista con imponencia y respeto para nadie entre las monedas y que se puede concretar diferentes formas de pensar en una así no creamos una grieta que puede dividir asgardia en 2!

Asgardia poses a unique opportunity to test and implement innovative approaches to evergreen problems faced by democratic regimes. Many examples of systemic, endemic corruption exist in contemporary Western societies; indeed, there are likely none which are truly free of it. Any attempt to correct these corrupt practices are unlikely to succeed in an entrenched system; this is doubly true if the person attempting to bring these to light is not a member of the professional group, but a layperson who's been harmed by them. I am such a person; over the course of several decades I have been tormented by the actions of the police and Courts of Canada -- not a nation that one readily associates with deeply entrenched corruption. But, while this experience has been undoubtedly painful and costly in so many ways, it has led me to consider the issue deeply, and to formulate this possible solution which I present for your consideration for implementation in Asgardian society.

In the Constitution of Asgardia, the Supreme Values of the society are listed, which include (e) human dignity, human rights and freedoms, and the harmonious development of individuals; (g) supremacy of Asgardia’s laws; (i) community and mutual support; (k) peace, tranquility, safety, security, respect, and confidence; (l) morality, fairness, and freedom; and (m) harmonious existence of individuals, society, and the nation. All of these Ideals are undermined by institutionalized corruption, which is a failure of the practices of professionalism.

It's worth considering what constitutes a profession (as opposed to, say, a trade). Generally, professions require many years of advanced education, in order to properly understand the complex issues dealt with by engineers, doctors, lawyers and so on. This complexity has resulted in the systems of professional discipline, in which alleged infractions of professional practice are judged by designated, senior members of the profession. This internalized administration of justice is justified because the complex issues faced by a professional can only be fully understood by someone with the same or greater professional training. This is a great power, and it must be balanced with a great responsibility: the interests of society must always reign above those of the professional society or of its members.

The temptation to cut corners on the social obligation is surely great, and likely to increase with time. Given that all professionals are human, it's probably inevitable that the ideals will slip over time. This is particularly true of law enforcement and the legal profession: for the practitioners of these, it's easy to justify shortcuts in order to catch criminals; and, for the professional disciplinarians, it's surely easier to give the benefit of the doubt to their colleagues over people saddled with the burden of criminal accusations. But what of the cases in which hasty, sloppy or simply misguided work place an innocent person, or even a victim of the crime, in the crosshairs of the law? In that case, the entirely justified protests of abridged rights will go ignored and unheard, piling injustice on injustice. This is unimaginably corrosive to the well being of the unfortunate target, who sees no path to redemption and faces a vastly increased risk of suicide or other disastrous and permanent outcomes. What can be done to help these people?

These people face a different sort of problem than one for which professional discipline was designed to handle. The existing system was meant to handle complex, technical questions that can only be properly understood by trained professionals of the domain in question. But here, we face something else entirely: it's an issue of basic fairness, caused by the failure of professionalism. These issues, by definition, can be understood by anyone, and that's the core of my proposal.

I suggest adding a Metaprofessional Council: its job is to enforce professionalism about professionalism. In cases where the professional discipline system fails, the aggrieved party can bring their complaint for consideration by the Council. This Council is composed not only of representatives of all professions, but also of lay citizens; it is concerned not with technicalities but basic fairness and the duty of all professionals to society above themselves and their professional group. The Council decisions can affirm, or override, the contested professional discipline decision. Perhaps it can also specify some form of compensation, both to help the harmed party and to provide motivation for the professional discipline groups to do their job well and avoid these events.

Tangentially, it's also worth considering the mental and emotional stress caused by unjust application of the State's force. The harmed party is unlikely to be able to clearly elucidate the situation, due to confusion at a complex system that they don't understand but which seems intent on causing them harm. Therefore, it's probably necessary to have trained intake workers with strong interpersonal skills and a good understanding of stress on the human mind.