View source for Enforcement

=== Current Synthesis on Enforcement ===

''' Proposed: Repurposing of Task Forces to Administrative Regions and Municipalities, with a Primary Objective of Defending its People'''
<br>
All personnel '''must''' learn the ''philosophical'' concepts and benefits of justice, morality, ethics, existentialism, socialism '''and''' democracy.
Universal policies and laws must be enforced assertively as these were previously agreed upon by all citizens.
The offending actions and corresponding consequences must be clearly outlined during prosecution.
The consequences must be consistent, and likely need to be harsh, with a sufficient moral equivalence that deters any repeat offenses without exception.

Localized policies and laws can only be shared andor requested, as these do not apply universally.
People may (often unintentionally) be unaware andor ignorant of such terms.
If individuals continue to disobey local legislation, the perpetrator can be requested to leave; informing them of what communities they can move to where their behaviours are welcomed, and perhaps even appreciated.

'''This matter requires attention from folks who are knowledgeable in political philosophy, negotiation, debate, self-defense, and so on.'''
<br>
<br>
Let’s consider the idea behind a jury. It has been mathematically proven that a collaborative decision will far outweigh the success of a probabilistic inference made by any single individual. Endless scientists, mathematicians and authors have argued in support of this notion. For instance, Charles Conn and Robert McLean (2019) who published Bulletproof Problem Solving support the idea of an egalitarian work process, which involves a multitude of contrasting perspectives as opposed to one, using a corporate setting example of ‘obligation to dissent’ to ensure all points are made, no matter the hierarchy or position of the participants. This approach can mitigate the impact of our innate human biases which sociologists everywhere argue that no individual on earth lives without. They also go on to argue that no impactful change can be reached without sufficient influence, so whatever decisions we make, we best make sure we always have the authority to exercise it. To execute such Consistent and Assertive Authority, without room for Abuse of Authority, we may wish to design automated algorithms to help with logical coupling of facts and laws, complemented by a jury of say 500 individuals selected randomly from around the globe, with as many possible degrees of separation from the one(s) on trial.