[TML] Law in the 3I kaladorn@xxxxxx (26 Oct 2024 05:27 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I James Catchpole (26 Oct 2024 08:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I James Catchpole (26 Oct 2024 08:38 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Phil Pugliese (26 Oct 2024 10:19 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Jim Vassilakos (26 Oct 2024 09:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Phil Pugliese (26 Oct 2024 10:08 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Charles McKnight (26 Oct 2024 14:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Timothy Collinson (26 Oct 2024 10:16 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I kaladorn@xxxxxx (26 Oct 2024 18:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I kaladorn@xxxxxx (26 Oct 2024 19:52 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Rupert Boleyn (27 Oct 2024 05:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Phil Pugliese (27 Oct 2024 10:24 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Rupert Boleyn (27 Oct 2024 14:12 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Phil Pugliese (27 Oct 2024 16:02 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I kaladorn@xxxxxx (27 Oct 2024 21:02 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Phil Pugliese (27 Oct 2024 21:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I kaladorn@xxxxxx (27 Oct 2024 16:05 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Phil Pugliese (27 Oct 2024 16:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I kaladorn@xxxxxx (27 Oct 2024 21:07 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Phil Pugliese (27 Oct 2024 21:33 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Charles McKnight (27 Oct 2024 21:42 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I kaladorn@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2024 06:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I kaladorn@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2024 06:32 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Phil Pugliese (28 Oct 2024 15:44 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Jeff Zeitlin (27 Oct 2024 21:47 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I kaladorn@xxxxxx (28 Oct 2024 07:06 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Phil Pugliese (28 Oct 2024 15:54 UTC)
Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Phil Pugliese (28 Oct 2024 15:38 UTC)

Re: [TML] Law in the 3I Rupert Boleyn 27 Oct 2024 05:59 UTC


On 27Oct2024 0852, xxxxxx@gmail.com wrote:
> Also another few legal queries:
>
> We know 'nukes' are not allowed by the Imperium. That was written when
> nukes were the only really effective population destroyer (I believe). I
> think it would also include FGMP/PGMP and other WMDs (biowar agents,
> genewar agents, nanowar swarms, etc). Is that reasonable?

I doubt it would include Fusion guns - they are 'just' powerful grenade
launchers or direct fire artillery in practical effects. They don't
disallow meson guns, after all.

Note that atomic weapons are not disallowed to member worlds. Only their
military use is. Usually, anyway (Men, not Laws).

> We know that the Imperial does not accept chattel slavery. Would that
> over human trafficking? (Even for helping people to change planets or
> whatever?)

ISTR mention of involuntary colonists, and the use of convicts for
things that they didn't sign up for, so it's very much "No *chattel*
slavery".

Sign a really unpleasant contract with fine print that you missed? Tough
luck, old chap, you should've got some better glasses. Find out after
the fact that the world you're to work on is a one-company planet and
your apparently very generous income all goes just providing food and
shelter? Too bad, you should've done your research before taking the
job. Not technically slavery, just may as well be.

> We know that the Imperials generally have a huge negative view of psi.
> Would psi drugs not thus be considered an Imperial Concern and something
> they'd look into and someone in power would see to that whoever was
> running it gets interrogated and probably send to the Thorium mines.

That would be why the mega-corps do most of their psi drug manufacture
and R&D outside the Imperium.

> We know that smart computer systems (cymbeline chips) are a threat
> because of their vast ability to crunch data and replicate. Should they
> also be considered an Imperial Concern?

Those chips were, obviously, if not officially (because to say they were
would attract interest in just what they were). Presumably any other
found would also be, *and* their existence would be secret, too.
Ultimately the wild ones on Cymbeline were nuked, presumably in an
attempt to wipe them out.

> We know that Ancient Items are, potentially, huge concerns. Would not
> the Empire confiscated all such items and interrogate the crew who is
> hauling it? If they were getting it from Red Zones... well, that's a
> spanking. And if they have stolen it, same. And in any case, they'd lose
> the item to the Imperium. Later it might end up in some Nobles office on
> the wall or in an Imperial Science Station or a very deep Imperial
> storage vault.

I'm pretty sure it's canon that ancient artefacts are Imperial Property.
You might get a finder's fee, but you don't get to keep the thing.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>