patergentium/wellspring
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update 11-01-sovereign-contagion-and-biohazard-law.md

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
wellspringcp
2021-12-28 15:24:22 +11:00
committed by GitHub
parent 002a172ddc
commit c34e249dd7
1 changed files with 4 additions and 6 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
11-contagions-and-biohazards/11-01-sovereign-contagion-and-biohazard-law.md
View File

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Private property secures conscious agents against interference and ensures that
However, nature sets herself up as a universal antagonist that afflicts conscious life and interferes with their liberty relentlessly - and nature, being (to our knowledge) unconscious, cannot be subjected to incentive framworks since it cannot rationally grasp its own self interest. With no uncertainty though, nature is a clear, persistent, and unrepentant offender against life and property.
> [Apologia]: Even if nature was conscious, ipso facto it would have proven that it has knowingly antagonized humans throughout the entirety of history and that it is not amenable to reason, so the the argument still stands.
Even if nature was conscious, ipso facto it would have proven that it has knowingly antagonized humans throughout the entirety of history and that it is not amenable to reason, so the the argument still stands.
When nature embodies its mischief in the form of contagions (disease, pestilence) and biohazards, the contagions themselves do not obey our laws or respond to rational disincentives either. Therefore, a perfectly well meaning, rational conscious entity who observes the principles of non-interference may become a vector of infection since the contagions which have hijacked him, do not observe those principles and cannot be reasoned with. Then, being infected with a contagion, that conagent can now infect other conagents.
@@ -46,17 +46,15 @@ The `SovCBio` law is potentially an area of policy where politicians can opportu
## `SovCBio` bonds for natures owners:
> [Apologia]: Bond due diligence requirements need not be fulfilled by natures owners in the form of actual bank balances, but insurance plans, loans, service contract agreements with providers to fulfill the injunction, etc, may all suffice.
As outlined above, it may be necessary to recruit natural resource owners, into complying with positive injunctions for due diligence both to keep contagions/biohazards at bay, and to control their spread when they do take root among the populace. Such injunctions shall take the form of a burden imposed on the natures owner to prove that they have sufficient capitals and/or infrastructure to fulfill said injunctions.
The legislature may also define a "general bond" which may be required to be readily capable of mobilization by natures owners in the face of urgent circumstances, in order to ensure that natures owners can comply with reasonable, urgently required new injunctions in the face of an unexpected contagion/biohazard threat.
That is to say, the mechanism used by the legislature shall not be to expand the `SovCBio` branch and subsume the implementation of the measures into localized branches of the `SovCBio` branch, funded by increased taxes and spending. Rather, the reification of the injunctions shall take the form of a requirement upon natures owners to prove that they have implemented said due diligence requirements/goals, and/or can readily front the capitals necessary to mobilize their implementation of the due diligence requirements/goals on short notice.
That is to say, the mechanism used by the legislature shall not be to expand the `SovCBio` branch and subsume the implementation of the measures into localized branches of the `SovCBio` branch, funded by increased taxes and spending. Rather, the reification of the injunctions shall take the form of a requirement upon natures owners to prove that they have implemented said due diligence requirements/goals, and/or can readily front the capitals necessary to mobilize their implementation of the due diligence requirements/goals on short notice. Bond due diligence requirements need not be fulfilled by natures owners in the form of actual bank balances, but insurance plans, loans, service contract agreements with providers to fulfill the injunction, etc, may all suffice.
In other words, instead of taxing and spending and centralizing the polity's CBio response mechanism implementation into the government, the tax remains uncollected by government (but very much still imposed on the natures owners) and kept within the private sector as a sort of reserve requirement to be kept readily on hand by natures owners, and to be kept able to be nimbly deployed.
In other words, instead of taxing and spending and centralizing the polity's CBio response mechanism implementation into the government, the tax remains uncollected by government (but very much still imposed on the natures owners) and kept within the private sector as a sort of reserve requirement to be kept readily on hand by natures owners, and to be kept able to be nimbly deployed. It is intentional that the decentralization of the polity's CBio response mechanism will result in a range of implementations using different technologies and methodologies. This will ensure that innovation in the implementation of this mechanism will be responsive to the progression of innovation.
The `SovCBio` branch shall have the power to regularly audit natures owners to ensure their compliance with `SovCBio` law and to file suits of negligence against those natures owners who fail to comply, and legislatively defined penalties shall be imposed on those natures owners found to be guilty. Penalties for non-compliance shall not include loss of title to the natures unless the peculiar position and nature of that natures makes it such that a particular instance of non-compliance by the owner raises a severe systemic 3rd party risk of harm which the `NAHA` mechanism is not sufficient to manage.
The `SovCBio` branch shall have the power to regularly audit natures owners to ensure their compliance with `SovCBio` law and to file suits of negligence against those natures owners who fail to comply, and legislatively defined penalties shall be imposed on those natures owners found to be guilty. Penalties for non-compliance shall not include loss of title to the natures unless the peculiar position and nature of that natures makes it such that a particular instance of non-compliance by the owner raises a systemic 3rd party risk of harm which the `NAHA` mechanism is not sufficient to manage.
In general it is intended that the natures owner ensure that their tenancy/rental contracts with their tenants enable the natures owners to do such works and upgrades as are required to meet due diligence injunctions, and obviously all such injunctions shall come into effect after legislatively defined grace periods.