One of the problems that previous iterations of individualist polities had is that they did not provide a mechanism to extend the principle of non-interference to activities which have the potential to inflict 3rd party harm when things go wrong. Because legislators haven't been competent and diligent to think the problem through and to extend current mechanisms, they usually establish an unaccountable government agency with broad arbitrary power to control and stifle innovation. This file specifies a mechanism which achieves the desired outcomes without establishing a 3-letter agency with broad discretionary powers.
This mechanism replaces things like the FDA and EPA with an open process in court which is subject to a jury of peers rather than to the whim of an unelected panel of beaurocrats and the caprice of politically unaccountable appointees. The solution to this problem was never to create a pantheon of unaccountable 3-letter government agencies. It was merely to be innovative and think of how to apply the current private property process to new phenomena.
Innovators working with harmful materials for which there is not yet a known containment and harnessing framework should be able to work within this legal framework to safely experiment and productize their innovation, by conducting their lab/study in a geographically isolated or sparsely populated area where no 3rd parties can be harmed, or where such 3rd parties give informed consent to the ongoing NAHA.
It is intentional that the requirement to be able to demonstrate a working, deployed containment method, or a ready rollback mechanism imposes capital barriers. Only those conagents which can front the capitals to safely handle such volatile activities without while preserving non-interference, should be able to attempt such innovative activities. That is indeed, the meaning of "responsible innovation".
I originally wanted to limit standing to sue under Attempted `NAHA` to individuals against whose person/property the 3rd party damage is likely. But this would make it difficult for whistleblower employees to invoke this regulatory mechanism - and it is likely that they will be the ones in the best position to know when their company is handling entities/substances/processes likely to cause 3rd party harms, in such a manner as to result in harm. Hence the current standing rules, which are that any credible witness with evidence has standing - we *want* employees of companies doing dangerous things to have legal standing to hold those companies accountable.
With reference to "maintaining at the ready, a provable method of fully reversing 3rd party harms", the satisfactory criteria for such a method's form will obviously be different for each different entity/substance/process. For example, a readily available method for reversing the harms from one such entity/substance/process may be to maintain liability insurance. The ready method for another such entity/substance/process may need to be antidotes or medication kept on hand and not past the expiry date.
### Explicit limitation of liability to the immediate actor(s):
I.e, one may use this action against someone who is using a particular tool in a way that will cause harm, but not against the manufacturer of that tool. E.g, one may sue the driver of a vehicle that produces harmful waste, but not the manufacturer of the vehicle. One may sue the factory that manufactures vehicles if that factory spews waste, but not the supplier of the fuel that is burned by the factory. One may sue a fuel refinery if its refinery process produces radiation, but not the manufacturer of a furnace used by the refinery.
