Pax Drone: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Abolishment and Legacy
Line 14:
Pax Drones as an official policy were established after the Second Packilvanian Civil War by the victorious [[Bedonite dynasty]]. The transition away from the communist economic model had brought with it the resurgence of private lending. Access to credit was vital for not only newly privatized former-state entities but also for a recently reestablished and rapidly developing class of small business owners and farmers.
The exact reasoning behind the Pax Drone policy and its formulation remains hazy and obscured by both general disorganization in the post-war government, and the opaque nature of Packilvanian decisionmaking. The policy has in part been attributed to a desire by the government to provide a sense of security for lenders, who were already operating in a deeply uncertain environment. It was in the government's interest to foster economic activity and thus access to credit. Strong political pressures that had emerged as a backlash against communism limited the degree to which state institutions were allowed to meddle in economic matters, and this precluded any efforts to provide serious state financing or support for businesses, or forms of debt relief or bailouts that might allow investors and creditors to easily recoup losses from failed ventures. Additionally, bankruptcy was itself viewed as a moral failing and a betrayal of trust, and it was feared that the institution of bankruptcy laws similar to those used elsewhere around the world might only add to the unease of creditors.
Under the Pax Drone system, Packilvanian citizens who were unable to make court ordered payments - Either to creditors or in the form of government fines - would be subjected to imprisonment and forced labor. The profits made would then flow through to the government which would use them to offset the debts in question. Thus, the policy would in theory provide a means of assurance to creditors while also pushing perceived layabouts into the labor force for the betterment of both themselves and the nation as a whole. Indeed, one of the largest populations subjected to the Drone policy was the homeless, who were frequently targeted with fines for loitering and rough sleeping before they were inevitably swept up into the penal system as a result of these unpaid penalties.
While the Drone policy had been established with the protection of private creditors in mind, its longevity is sometimes attributed to the fact that the burden primarily fell on these underrepresented groups, particularly as local governments sought to effectively offload undesirable homeless populations onto the national justice system.
(The rest of this is WIP seriously just ignore it)
| |||