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
2021-06-24 15:06:03 +10:00
committed by GitHub
parent eb26bc446f
commit f928f3a489
1 changed files with 5 additions and 5 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

@@ -44,15 +44,15 @@ The `SovCBio` law is potentially an area ofpolicy where politicians can opportun
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.
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.
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.
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 to be nimbly deployed.
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.
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.
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 general it is intended that the natures owner ensure that their tenancy/rental contracts with their bailees 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.
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.
However, 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.
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.
## `SovCBio` general populace injunctions: