# Wellspring: Sovereign Contagion and Biohazard law (`SovCBio`):

## Definition of the term "Contagion":

In the `WS` constitution, the term "contagious" with reference to disease/infection is meant to denote those diseases/infections which:
  - Can be communicated to other individuals beyond the control of the infected/diseased individual.

A disease/infection may be considered to be contagious by this constitution under certain circumstances while being non-contagious under other circumstances. For example, the use of a drug or technological tool may cause an otherwise contagious disease to become manageable and non-contagious.

## Justification: why is `SovCBio` law needed?

Private property secures conscious agents against interference and ensures that they can exercise their liberties (capabilities) without fearing violence, duress and fraud from other conscious agents because conscious agents can be rationally deterred from volitionally infringing on liberty through the use of frameworks of incentives and disincentives since (most) conscious entities respond to such frameworks out of rational self interest.

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.

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.

We cannot enforce laws against the contagion or biohazard itself. We can only enforce laws against the contagious individual, and against the conscious owning agents of natural resources who can be enlisted to consider it to be in their rational self interest to control the spread of contagions/biohazards through the law.

Under normal circumstances, an individual has the right to unimpeded use of his capabilities as long as they don't impede another conagent's ability to exercise theirs. However, when an individual is hosting a contagion, ordinarily non-intrusive actions which would normally not constitute an act of aggression/impingement against another individual, do take on the embodiment of harm since they would communicate the contagion, and thus impose harm on another conagent.

Through no fault of the contagious host, actions which would normally be their prerogative by right, become actions which are an infringement on the liberty of others.

The `SovCBio` law represents a recognition of this fact (as stated in the "Definition of private property" in the "Principles" document of this constitution), and it subsumes under itself, all laws which govern contagions and biohazards.

## Scope, purpose and limitations:

The `SovCBio` law is potentially an area of policy where politicians can opportunistically grant themselves new powers based on hazy reasoning. For that reason, we want to define clear, limiting principles around its purpose and scope. `SovCBIO` is not intended to form a grey area of reasoning to enable the expansion of government power. In fact, as humankind invents new technologies that enable contagions and biohazards to be controlled more readily, the scope and powers of this branch of the government should be continually narrowed and diminished.

`SovCBio` legislation shall concern itself **solely** with the following and with nothing else: 
- The extra, positive injunctions of due diligence laid upon contagious conagents during such time that they're contagious -- the neglect of which may be made to constitute negligence at common law. Such injunctions shall consist of mandatory requirements to take such precautions as are necessary to suppress their contagiousness or adequately isolate themselves; and shall fall into the following two categories:
  - Injunctions against knowing carriers of a contagion.
  - Injunctions against the general population for due diligence in the face of a contagion which is contagious before it triggers symptoms/clinical features and which therefore can be spread by an unknowing carrier.
- General and per-disease legal standards for what combinations of symptoms and/or clinical features constitute presumed prima facie evidence of knowledge upon the contagious conagent about its contagious state, in order to mediate reasoning about intent and neglect at common law, when a conagent is accused of infecting another conagent.
- The broader, extra labour required to proactively counter-act nature's mischievous intrusions into human life and keep contagions and biohazards at bay within populated areas.
- The broader, extra labour required to control the communication of contagions and biohazards when they do arise within populated areas.

`SovCBio` law is not to be used for any other purpose whatsoever. An ***inexhaustive*** list of goals that `SovCBio` law is adamantly ***not*** intended to pursue is:

- Redistributive programs for healthcare labour and services for any class or group through government action/intervention.
- Mandatory medication or vaccination of indepagents. Under no circumstances shall government have the authority or power to forcefully medicate any indepagent. Animals and other depagents may be forcibly medicated/vaccinated, etc, however.
- Government-contrived eugenics/cosmetics plans and schemes.
  - Private citizens however, have the right to pursue any cosmetic modification to their own body and property as long as such modifications do not pass along to offspring. In the field of genetic engineering and its peer fields, for example, this might be expressed in law as a ban on germ-line editing, while leaving somatic cell line editing free.

## `SovCBio` bonds for natures owners:

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. 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. 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 systemic 3rd party risk of harm which the `NAHA` mechanism is not sufficient to manage.

> [Apologia]: Think of a way to do something similar to the vendable warrants to enlist private individuals to do the auditing work and file suits against natures owners for not meeting these injunctions.

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: