Re-create the disability/welfare/children section

16-miscellaneous/10-01-private-possession-of-weapons-apologia.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+# Wellspring: Private Possession of Weapons: Apologia:
+
+[Apologia]: While the government is operating subject to the principle of being an enforcer of the sovereignty of its residents, it is not a threat for the government to possess weapons of mass destruction while barring such weapons to the residents since political accountability is still functional.
+
+[Apologia]: However, when a government becomes tyrannical, there is no functional accountability and politicians feel no threat of consequences from the residents, and they do unleash such weapons on the residents (chemical weapons deployed in Syria, etc). Under such circumstances however, it is not likely that it would be necessary to extend the right to keep and bear weapons of mass destruction such as ICBMs and nuclear missiles to the residents, in order to enable them to bring the government to heel. There is a much more effective measure: we will keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the private residents, but we will also apply this policy to the government:
+
+> [Apologia]: That should be sufficient to ensure that politicians do not deploy weapons of mass destruction against `WS` residents and also ensure that politicians will have sufficient incentive to actively take action to stop other politicians from taking such action. Weapons of mass destruction are meant to be deployed against external enemies and not against internal residents of `WS`.

16-miscellaneous/10-01-private-possession-of-weapons.md

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+# Wellspring: Private Possession of Weapons
+
+# Residents must have access to any weapons the police/military can use.
+
+Implicit in the right to life is the right to defend one's life against initiations of force by other conagents. Therefore `WS` categorically denies to the legislature the power to make any laws which infringe on the residents' **pre-existing** right to keep and bear **all** weapons _which are in use by the police and military_. In particular:
+- Any weapon which is in use by the police force **must** be freely and **liberally** available for purchase, distribution and use by the residents of a `WS` polity without exception.
+- Any weapon which is in use by the military **must** be freely and **liberally** available for purchase, distribution and use by the residents of a `WS` polity, unless that weapon meets any of the following criteria:
+  - The weapon is has intercontinental range, or range that extends beyond the borders of the `WS` polity.
+  - The weapon, in its normal use-case, is designed to cause indiscriminate destruction at a scale larger than an ordinary building structure.
+
+Ergo, any weapons which are denied to the police and military by the "Weaponry denied to the police and military" section below, are also denied to the private residents of a `WS` polity.
+
+## Weaponry denied to the police and military:
+
+The government shall never arm the police and/or military with weapons which have the following characteristics:
+- Weapons which harness biological entities/organisms to cause harm to individuals; commonly known as "biological weapons".
+- Weapons which harness an ability to **modify/write** to the consciousness (whether the data/memory, goals and/or algorithms/logic) of a conscious agent.
+  - This shall not be construed to infringe on the rights of private conagents to volitionally use brain-computer interfaces and other similar technologies on their own consciousness, or on the consciousnesses of other consenting conagents.
+
+The use, **by the government**, of technologies that grant the ability to **read** from the consciousness (whether the data/memory, goals and/or algorithms/logic) of a conscious agent are to be subject to those constraints outlined elsewhere in this constitution (_Chapter 08, Courts_) without exception.
+
+## The "recreational nuke" controversy:
+
+If at any time, for any reason, weapons of mass destruction are deployed by a `WS` government against the internal residents of a `WS` polity, every single conagent currently holding a political office in the legislative and executive branches shall **immediately** become an outlaw without exception.
+
+For this reason, politicians holding office are advised to hold impeachment proceedings against any individual holding a political office who is engaged in conspiracy to deploy a weapon of mass destruction against the internal residents of a `WS` polity.

16-miscellaneous/10-02-addictive-and-psychotropic-substances.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# Wellspring: Addictive and psychotropic substance laws
+
+All addictive substances have the property of needing some counselling and guidance program to aid the addicted individual in managing and possibly overcoming their addiction. To that end, the `WS` constitution has already granted all such businesses heavy tax discounts to increase their profit margins and ensure they will always be in abundant supply.
+
+The second problem is those psychotropic drugs which increase threats of violence. We make it illegal to go into public while actively under the influence of such a substance. To wit, one may possess such a substance, even brandish and sell it in public, but the consumption thereof in public, or the movement in public while under the influence of such a substance is illegal.
+
+This simply means that if one intends to get inebriated, one should plan in advance not to leave the house/party/wherever until one is sober. And it implies that the owner/manager of the place where the substance is consumed, accepts the risk of damage to his property posed by the inebriated person. If s/he doesn't, then s/he should be careful not to let persons onto his property who are in possession of substances, or to kick them out/call the police to escort them away.
+
+The penalty for being out in public while inebriated is arrest, and escorting home by the police, or if the police are unable to determine the home domicile of the person, to a holding centre until the person is sober, at which point they are free to leave.
+
+By combining widely available, and cheap counselling services with a policy that discourages people from going out into public while inebriated, we reduce the likelihood of violent 3rd party effects, while also making available paths to weaning oneself off addictive substances. No addictive/psychotropic substance may be made illegal. Special taxes however, may be applied only to those substances which have a tendency to increase the likelihood of violence. The revenue from such taxes shall assist in the maintenance of the detainment centres.

16-miscellaneous/10-03-genetic-engineering-apologia.md

@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+# Wellspring: Genetic engineering: Apologia
+
+## Germ line editing:
+
+We fully privatize it and don't allow people to modify species which they cannot fully privatize and control and keep restricted to their own private property. For example, you can modify your dog as long as you can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that you can track, label and geo-restrict it, but not mosquitoes unless you can satisfy these criteria, which is likely very hard to do. We place the burden of proof on the modifier and owner to prove that they can in fact, contain the modified creature and its progeny **beyond reasonable doubt**
+
+The same for crops/plants: no germ line editing which you cannot prove you can contain to your own farm/greenhouse (vertical farming may be a boon here since it might be easier to demonstrate containment beyond a reasonable doubt.).

16-miscellaneous/10-03-genetic-engineering.md

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# Wellspring: Genetic engineering:
+
+## Somatic cell editing:
+
+Somatic cells may be modified for non-cosmetic purposes without restriction, as long as the activity does not constitute a Non-Ameliorable Harmful Activity (`NAHA`) as defined elsewhere in this constitution.
+
+Somatic cells may be edited for cosmetic purposes without restriction as long as the subject of the modification is sui juris and the activity does not constitute a `NAHA`.
+
+## Germ line editing:
+
+All germ-line editing is automatically classified as being a `NAHA` **by default** and the burden of proof that it is not a `NAHA` rests on the entity producing the specimen. Furthemore the conagent engaging in the activity must demonstrate that **all** descendants of their germ-line edited specimen can be completely tracked, labeled and kept within the confines of their own private property, or of the property of the conagents to whom they sell/distribute them, **beyond reasonable doubt**.

16-miscellaneous/10-04-food-and-ingestible-substance-sanitation-apologia.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+# Wellspring: Ingestible substance safety: Apologia:
+
+Talk about how this can be used to bring about the widespread adoption of best practice, such as pasteurization, etc.

16-miscellaneous/10-04-food-and-ingestible-substance-sanitation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Wellspring: Ingestible substance safety:
+
+In order to ensure that all food and ingestible substance production, warehousing/storage and distribution/vending is done in a sanitary manner, we provide a legal mechanism to enable customers to inspect the facilities used to produce and/or store and distribute ingestible substances. Where evidence of unsanitary operation is found, we provide remedies to enforce sanitary behaviour.
+
+## Warrant: Sanitation Inspection warrant:
+
+As with all `WS` warrants, the warrant shall specify its scope (places, things and effects to be searched/siezed); there shall be no general warrants in a `WS` polity.
+
+This warrant is a transferrable, vendable legal instrument. It is intentional that a successfully procured warrant may be sold off by its original obtainer (or any subsequent owner) to another entity to execute and prosecute it, under whatever terms are deemed mutually profitable to both parties to the transaction.
+
+### Standing and burden of proof:
+
+Any employee working for an employer that produces, warehouses or distributes/vends an ingestible substance shall have standing to seek a warrant against that producer/warehouser/distributor/vendor. The burden of proof and other requirements needed to obtain this warrant (including affidavits, etc) shall be legislatively defined.
+
+### Powers:
+
+This warrant grants the possessor the power to enter into the premises of a facility and search all areas and equipment/machinery which are used to store the materials for and/or produce an ingestible substance which is offered for sale; and to enlist the aid of law enforcement toward this end if need be. The executor of the warrant may gather such evidence as proves an unsanitary production/storage process. The executor of the warrant may take with itself such witnesses and equipment as are determined necessary by the court to procure relevant evidence, subject to such limitations as are defined by the legislature to allow the facility to protect trade secrets, unless such trade secrets are themselves relevant evidence.
+
+This mechanism may also be invoked to gather evidence of the use of input ingredients which have not been published by a producer in the ingredient list, and seek an injunction against such a producer to publish the use of such ingredients.
+
+Upon finding sufficient evidence, the executor has recourse in the courts to a cause of action known as the "Unsanitary or Undisclosed Ingestible Substance".
+
+## Cause of action: "Unsanitary or Undisclosed Ingestible Substance":
+
+### Burden of proof:
+
+The plaintiff must show according to a legislatively defined burden of proof:
+- Evidence of unsanitary storage, or an unsanitary process.
+- Evidence of the use of an unpublished non-trace ingredient which intentionally ends up in the final product.
+- Evidence of the use of an unpublished trace ingredient which is not intended to end up in the final product, but which has a legislatively defined likelihood of ending up in the final product.
+
+### Limitations:
+
+### Relief:
+
+Upon favourable judgment for the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall have redress in the form of legislatively defined injunctions and penalties against the defendant, including the levying of fines by the government (which the plaintiff shall receive a percentage of) and injunctions to suspend production of the product until such time that the defendant can show cause to resume production (i.e, the defendant must address the sanitation problem or publish the unpublished ingredient). At such time the defendant may sue the government to lift the injunctions and resume operation.
+
+### Defense:
+
+When invoked to show unsanitary operation, this mechanism is intended to prosecute the use of an unsanitary process, or the use of unsanitary warehousing in a facility that produces/warehouses/vends an ingestible substance. It is not intended to prosecute the negligence/failure of employees to apply the employer's recommended due diligence in carrying out their work in order to sabotage the employer and open them to prosecution.
+- Negligence on the part of employees to execute the employer's sanitation guidelines shall form a defense.
+- An employer may demonstrate due diligence by showing that the evidence presented for the unsanitary situation is the result of negligence by an employee rather than negligence by the employer, by showing that:
+  - S/he has provided well-resourced and readily usable processes/tools for sanitary operation and,
+  - S/he has enforced the use of said processes/tools for sanitary operation by putting into place (and enforcing) relevant incentives and/or penalties.

16-miscellaneous/10-06-public-nudity-and-sexuality.md

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+# Wellspring: Public Nudity and Sexuality
+
+Consistent with the [rational requirement to sandbox developing conceptual minds during their growth into sexual maturity](./10-explicit-sandboxing-of-protected-classes-apologia.md#the-rational-justification-for-sandboxing), we recognize the need for legislation around public sexual behaviour. Herein are the limiting principles around what powers the legislature
+shall have to legislate around this issue.
+
+## Public nudity:
+
+The legislature shall only have the power to regulate the display of primary sex characteristics, and only those displays which are:
+- Not on private property.
+- Visible outside of the confines of the private property on which the display was made, to an observer which is not making an effort to peer into that private property.
+
+## Public sex acts:
+
+The legislature shall only have the power to regulate sex acts performed in the following context:
+- Not on private property.
+- Visible outside of the confines of the private property on which the act was conducted, to an observer which is not making an effort to peer into that private property.

16-miscellaneous/10-07-intellectual-property.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# Wellspring: Intellectual property
+
+Identified concepts are not patentable. Why not?
+* NDA is the secret path - gov't protects NDAs.
+  * NDAs are suboptimal. Useful knowledge is kept secret because the discoverer has to wait to find an application.
+  * What are the arguments against knowledge patents?
+    * "Everybody will just patent every little thing". Ok, so what? That's a good thing: it'll encourage people to disclose useful knowledge in exchange for protection.
+    * "Companies will have to pay exorbitently high royalties". If it is profitable to use an idea, then no cost is prohibitive.
+    * "People will launch Denial-Of-Service attacks by registering concepts and refusing to license them". We can have a special cause of action for conceptual patents which will
+      enable other individuals to 
+Mathematical formulae are not patentable because they express inductive generalizations about nature.
+
+The produce of simulation is protectable as copyright.
+The produce of trust, reputation, credibility, credentials.
+The produce of applying concepts via a method is patentable.
+Computer programs are protectable because they are the application of concepts via a method.
+
+One solution for patent time limits would be to place a burden of proof on the owner of the patent to prove that they are actively pursuing its use and application in production.
+* The patent duration lasts from the beginning of the first commercial production.
+* Prior to the point of first commercial production, the owner has a right to exclude, but it may be lost if a competitor can prove that they aren't acting to bring it to market.

16-miscellaneous/10-explicit-sandboxing-of-protected-classes-apologia.md

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+# Wellspring: Apologia: Explicit sandboxing of protected classes:
+
+## The rational justification for sandboxing:
+
+Humans are a rational species, and the faculty of reason is a rational creature's only tool for survival. Experience and knowledge are the raw materials for our
+minds to use to form abstractions which enable us to thrive both in terms of subsistence and in terms of our ability to forge useful relationships and integrate
+into social systems.
+
+We recognize that certain crucial categories of experience and knowledge take time to develop, and that prior to the mastery of these areas of competency, it is
+expected that those individuals who have not had the chance to master those competences will err and will perform below the expected competence of one who has
+mastered those competences.
+
+Sandboxing is a necessary mechanism for the development of a rational creature which is **not omnipotent** and whose tool for survival and thriving is the
+**gradual acquisition of conceptual knowledge**.
+
+Let there be no ambiguity: `Wellspring` recognizes and champions the need for the protection of the mind of a developing rational being from exploitation by mature
+predators seeking to sneak into a playpen of disarmed, underdeveloped minds and poach easy prey.
+
+## The role of `Wellspring`'s sandboxing legal abstraction:
+
+Every society treats certain selected groups of people with "kid gloves" and assigns them protected status within a "transparent" bubble or sandbox.
+It is difficult to balance the need to preserve these sandboxes while also preserving the dignity of the people who are benefitting from the sandbox - the
+people inhabiting the sandbox may find it unpleasant and demeaning to be constantly told that they are in fact, inhabiting a sandbox.
+Traditionally, most cultures have balanced these requirements by never explicitly acknowledging the existence of these sandboxes.
+While this is a workable approach that satisfies the needs of the persons inhabiting the sandboxes, it produces undesirable outcomes in the following ways:
+
+* Because these sandboxes exist to protect persons who lack key knowledge and experience, it follows that the persons assigned to these sandboxes may fail to
+  realize that they are in fact, receiving special treatment, and for this reason they may (and a sizeable number of them in fact, do) fail to realize that there
+  is a curriculum of knowledge and experience that they are expected to master in order to graduate from the sandbox.
+* The traditional strategy of not explicitly acknowledging the existence of these sandboxes often doesn't make it obscures that these sandboxes have a clear
+  deadline date by which the protected class of individuals are each expected to **graduate**. Many persons find themselves ejected from these sandboxes after
+  their graduation date has passed and they are surprised at how differently they are treated after they are ejected from the sandboxes. More importantly,
+  they are stunned to find out that there was indeed such a curriculum and graduation deadline, and that they failed to pass a test which they were never
+  explicitly made aware of.
+* The traditional strategy also makes it difficult for us to reason about the fact that people often inhabit multiple different sandboxes simultaneously, each
+  with its own required curriculum and graduation date because we refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the sandbox to begin with.
+  * However, the law often has to refer very directly to these overlapping sandbox periods.
+  * Yet because they are never articulated clearly in culture or in law, the law doesn't have the vocabulary to speak clearly about them, and usually fails to
+    properly create the desired outcomes since neither the entire culture and the law itself are all avoiding talking about these sandboxes.
+  * Often, because we fail to recognize the existence of sandboxes, we fail furthermore to recognize that many times we may be unknowingly speaking (in legislation)
+    about several overlapping yet distinct sandboxes at the same time, and this causes us to legislate hastily and disastrously by introducing rules that affect
+    unintended secondary sandboxes in unintentional ways.
+
+Wellspring has chosen to introduce an explicit framework for thinking about these overlapping sandboxes inhabited by protected classes of individuals.
+
+## Examples of sandboxes which should be explicitly recognized by the polity:
+
+Not all of these sandboxes are appropriately by legislation, and private sector mechanisms are obviously both sufficient and ideal for many of them (such as the
+development of manners).
+
+Throughout history, human cultures have created various incubation systems to enable these individuals to develop these competences in a sandboxed environment.
+These sandboxes permeate the entire private and public sphere and are woven into every element of the culture. An inexhaustive list of such competences includes:
+* Manners and an understanding of the proper way to speak in both vertical and horizontal relationships.
+* Sensitivity to the fact that there are biological differences in capability between individuals; and the proper vocabulary and level of compassion for those
+  less capable.
+* An understanding of sexuality and the long term personal and psychological consequences of sexual decisions. Hitherto, cultures have often encapsulated this
+  in the "legal age of consent".
+* A mastery of economic principles and an understanding of one's own economic interests; and skill in the art of negotiation.
+  * Most cultures have expressed the protections required for the development of these skills in the form of labour laws; especially in the form of the minimum
+    wage law.
+  * The class of jobs known as "unskilled labour" or "minimum wage jobs" is intended to be a sandbox environment within which young workers learn the principles of
+    business, finance, continuous career and skill development, and negotiation. Hitherto, because it wasn't made known explicitly to these young individuals that
+    these jobs are intended to be a sandbox from which they will graduate, they tend to cling to the sandbox protections of minimum wages and other similar laws,
+    beyond their expected graduation date.
+  * Notice how this "sandbox" reasoning framework provides a strong case for laws prohibiting child labour.
+  * We recognize that acknowledging this opens the door for arguments in favour of an age-gated miminum wage policy for example -- that is, that minimum wage laws
+    would not be universal but rather they would be based on the age of the employee, with an eventual cutoff to zero when the employee passes a certain age. We
+    don't take any specific policy position other than to assert that once an individual passes the legislatively defined sandbox period for the acquisition of
+    these competences, all such special treatment laws should cease to have any effect on that person's contracts.
+* An understanding of long-term consequences and the basic structure of various common contracts. Hitherto this has tended to be encapsulated in law as the age
+  of sui juris.
+* An understanding of their level of talent in the various available professions, and a clear comprehension of which skills are their strengths, and therefore
+  which skills they should pursue further as careers; and which skills they should realize are not best for them. In general, this is a fairly difficult sandbox to
+  get right, and most cultures generally expect young people to use their teens and their twenties to find at least one career path they are competent at and commit
+  to it.
+
+## Why `Wellspring` has chosen to make sandboxes explicit:
+
+The purpose of sandboxing as a legal abstraction within `Wellspring` is to make explicit the reasons why sandboxing is needed, and moreover to ensure that persons
+inhabiting sandboxes have the required curriculum and expected graduation date communicated clearly to them. We expect that this will ultimately result in more
+desirable outcomes since individuals can better prepare themselves to graduate these sandboxes rather than to fail to graduate, yet still be held liable for failure
+by the culture at large if they fail to realize that there were milestones that they were expected to achieve.
+
+We have seen that in past cutures founded on vague elements of "capitalism", the failure by large numbers of youth to graduate from these sandboxes produces
+dissatisfaction, especially because they tend to complain that they didn't even know that they were being assessed in the first place. This is essentially the
+complaint that people are making when they say things such as:
+
+"I was told that in a free society I can be anything I want to be and I followed my dreams but I eventually discovered that certain doors weren't open to me.
+Sadly I spent too long knocking on those futile doors without committing to a more realistic door. I have also been convinced now by a Marxist that under Marxism,
+I would have had a much longer incubation time in the sandbox, within which I could find my desired field of work. In reality, under Marxism I would have had a
+much shorter sandbox time and I would have been assigned to some job without any say in the matter. My real complaint here is that I feel that the sandbox period
+I was given was too short."
+
+`WS` doesn't think that it is possible to define the perfect sandbox durations for every protected class's development -- but we do think that explicitly informing
+individuals that they are in fact inhabiting a sandbox and that there is a deadline for graduation, will help them to more capably manage their development.
+Moreover we hope it will reduce the number of individuals who find themselves ejected from sandboxes and labelled as failures when they never even realized that
+they were being given special treatment within a sandbox in the first place.

16-miscellaneous/20-cryptography.md

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+# Cryptography:
+
+Cryptography may need to be forcibly opened up. If a company claims to have encrypted some data, then it should be valid for customers to demand to see proof that it is in fact encrypted. That is: any claim by an agent to have encrypted some data is a legally enforcible representation of fitness for purpose. Refusal to facilitate inspection shall be grounds to penalize the party for making the claim.
+