Chapter 7: Regulations
Regulations only codify the NAP
Under this constitution, regulations exist only to codify the Non‑Aggression Principle. The constitution states this explicitly in Article VI: Laws:
- The State shall not impose safety, economic, moral, environmental, technological, or administrative regulations except where failure to comply constitutes harm or negligence rising to the level of violating the Non‑Aggression Principle. Any such regulation shall be narrowly tailored to preventing that harm and shall not restrict voluntary behaviour, exchange, or land use beyond what is necessary to prevent demonstrable aggression or negligence.
Safety standards can certainly be proposed in industries like aviation, housing, or pharmaceuticals, but they are not automatically mandated by law. Instead, the law is grounded in the NAP and applied according to the particulars of each case.
In arbitration, adherence to widely accepted safety standards may be considered. But the decisive question is always this: does the negligence rise to the level of violating the NAP?
Importantly, the NAP is understood to be violated not only when actual harm occurs, but also when actions clearly and seriously place people at risk. That’s why, for example, nuclear power plants face strict safety requirements. The potential to contaminate vast areas and endanger thousands of lives demands precaution, even before any accident has taken place.
Examples of negligence that violates the NAP
The following are examples where someone, through negligence, puts others at serious risk of harm and therefore is taken to violate the NAP:
- A person drives while intoxicated, putting passengers, other road users, and pedestrians at serious risk of injury or death.
- A builder uses roof fasteners known in the building industry to be incapable of holding the roof down under storms reasonably expected at the location. Occupants and neighbouring property are exposed to the serious risk of the roof lifting or breaking apart.
- An electrician conceals wiring known to overheat under the loads for which the building is intended, creating a serious risk of fire to occupants and adjoining properties.
- A gas fitter puts a system into service despite a test revealing a leaking connection, creating a serious risk of poisoning, fire, or explosion.
- A person responsible for an occupied public building locks or obstructs its available emergency exits, leaving occupants without a practicable means of escape from a foreseeable fire.
- An excavator removes support from neighbouring land or foundations without providing another means of support, creating a serious risk of collapse on property belonging to others.
For the most part, the rule of law does not attempt to codify every possible case of negligence. Doing so would create too much complexity in the law.