BitLaw - Polycentric Law in Crypto-Space (part 1)

Apps
1

Bitcoin shatter the finance institutions, removing the middle of man aka the godvernment, and it’s taxation. You completely own your money, 100 percent. The next implementation is an idea that you completely own yourself, and 100 percent of your fruit of labor. An idea that you completely control of the laws. Law essentially means contract. If the contract is not signed by you, it is invalid to you. It is only valid to a person who signed the contract. In crypto space, we call that smart contract, but it still technically a contract.

RULES (This is a joke. It is a demonstration on how polycentric society looks like. At end of the thread, you’ll understand what I mean by that.)

ALL OF POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS GOES TO THIS THREAD.
Warning, there are no technical details in this thread.

ALL OF THE BITLAW AND TECHNICAL STUFF GOES TO NEW THREAD.
Warning, Absolutly NO political discussions in technical threads.

Before you start discussing about godvernment, and it’s role in society. There will be disagreements, and agreements. The core value in this thread is talking about polycentric law. We can have a discussion about polycentric law, and solutions. We can talk about how to design, and program it.

If you do not understand, then ask questions. Only after the fact that you have indeed read, and watch the videos that I recommended. Everything about the subject is there for you to learn. I spend the last 8 years reading variety of subjects such as marxist, rothbard, mises, proudhon, chomsky, and many more to list. I learned, and accept the challenge that I will build exactly what it has been researched in the last 50 years.

If you do want to learn, then please read/watch first, then ask questions.

All of the recommendation is on the sidebar in /r/polycentric_law, and if you want research more, there are more materials that was posted in the sub.

And lastly, COLA. Community of Legal Agreement. Read that as well.

Now let’s get into the app. Let’s brew a visual in our minds, everything is still the same as before. Business has always been usual. The minor difference is there are no taxation, and no godvernment. You pull out your phone/pc, open up bitlaw. The screen opens, it presents several objects.

OpenStreetMaps
Cola (contracts)
Cola Forums
Contacts

Let’s get into details…

  1. Openstreetmaps,

Ability to look to buy/sell property assets.
Ability to look at communities in your area.
Ability to look at the contracts that is being popular/least/new in an area that you are currently looking at,
Ability to look at DRO agencies,
And rest of small things that already exist on osm such as street names, company names, trails, and etc.

  1. Cola Forums,

Similar to craiglist,
Tighten up the community, and take care each other greatly.

  1. Property Asset Validators (Real Estate 3rd Party Agency)

which validates that the land is owned by the rightful owner. This is dealt by a 3rd party Real Estate agencies.

  1. Contracts

It is extended from the smart contract with a script, (open/write/delete/close). It uses either two ways, save in public/private storage.
a. In the public, general contracts are listed, stared, and contains comments. It can be forked.
b. In private, is where you store signed contracts with other party. It also(if desired) send a link to the 3rd party law agencies of their choice. Other party will also send that info to their 3rd party of choice.
c. Every clause is separated, and forkable. Every clause has a comment/rating system.

  1. Crowd Source Community(inside of forums?)

The goal here is to not to have taxation, and votes.

Suppose if this guy wants to put a mirror post on the blind spot street so that drivers could see incoming traffic. With direct democracy, if the community majority disagrees, then he has no choice but accept the consequences. If majority agrees, then, the property right holder on that block will have no choice but accept the consequences, otherwise face violence. There is no win-win in this scenario.

With bitlaw, he could communicate to that particular property holder, ask him to put mirror up. If yes, then it is approved without the majority. If no, then he would go off his way and deal other issues. However, if the user is really concern, he could pay him to place a pole with a mirror on that property. The property owner gets a profit, and the drivers gets a profit. It’s a win-win.

If the cost is too much, you can start a crowd source with approval of private property, then he can pool some of his resources into it as well as anybody else, if they like the idea. All of this is done without a vote. All of this is done without force. This is great because voting is just a huge waste of time, and has zero impact for performance. It introduce drag times, nonsense drama, champaign, political parties, and psychological effects on humans. Then we’ll be back to square one.

The coolest part about this is that anybody can contribute to a project they like. If something needs to be added in a community, you are free to pitch your idea in. Start pooling your resources into that project, and not have to force people to pay. You continue to pitch in until the goal is completed. When other sees your project, and like it, they’ll give you money.

6.Requirement to move to different location because of certain laws that you don’t like gets thrown out of the window.

Property owners who wants to participate a community is doable, without the sacrifice of his individual freedom. It joins the community iron. It is still under his jurisdiction that the community has no control of his property. This means the community contract goes under his main clause. It is very explicit. It has to be hierarchical to establish the understanding the intent of said contract. If he lives in an area that is highly support community of Lion, the community of lion does not have jurisdiction to kick him out. No majority nor minority have a jurisdiction to rule personal property owners.

This means that users can have overlapping cola but does not indict users for living under a territorial rule. All of this is done without having to move.
Think game of conor. One doesn’t like the community he is living in but rather contribute to another community outside of his area, all without having to move. He should able to do so. Why should the community force him to leave in the area that he invested in?

7.Private Security

This has to be separated from the cola itself. They act as a mall security, nothing else. They do not enforce outside of the property grounds. Take a look at peacekeepers. Something like this.

8.Courts, Jury, and the Judge.

Judges would be randomly selected, that has no background between two parties. There would be jury randomly selected, that also has no background between two parties. Then there are witness… Jury can use jury nullification without repercussion. The court uses group crypto-messaging system, where everybody has their say. This stuff is usually for murders, thieves, and fraud. If this stuff happened in their community/private sectors, it is up to the community/private sectors to deal with the issue. Things like law suits are usually non-existence because nobody wants to deal with patents trolls. Stuff like TPP, CISA, SOPA would be thrown out of window because nobody would sign such thing.

2 Likes
2

This part threw me off a bit

You don’t want this?

1 Like
3

What do you mean?

The major problem we have is that all system we have lived through benefits the collective greatly, and diminish personal freedoms. We need an law app that empowers individuals, not collective.

4

“collective” means all people together, I think.

So if it benefits all people, that’s good! Not bad, right?

Like, if it benefits everyone on earth, that’s good! Not bad

3 Likes
5

The clear problem is juries. It is forced servitude. You can take volunteers or you can pay them - but either way has side effects. Volunteers may have agendas. Paying them requires money that has to come from some source like taxation.

Insurance companies do have an incentive to pool together and pay for better safety. They are already quite active in this area…

In general I think smart contracts and automated decentralized titles could massively undermine the need for government… It would not elminate it entirely, but I suspect 10-15 percent of the economy is Bean-counters and regulators watching the bean counters. If the beans counted themselves, We would have a lot more freedom.

6

Yeah, I agree.

Private companies would benefit this greatly because they no longer have the need to file court ruling and wait times. It can be done within minutes. How it is processed, and fines is completely done through private agencies. That is the purpose of this idea. Competing law keeps corruption at low level, and they cannot dominate over you. Look at communist countries where the godvernment has complete control of their labor, and property. It has no price mechanism, and does not incentive individuals. The key component here is that everybody owns themselves, including the property they bought. In USSA, the godvernment owns your property even if you already paid it off. Hint, property taxes.

Bitlaw will be more efficient dealing with fines, lawsuits, and insurances rather quickly. It would be much faster than it is to set up a date through the monopoly court system and wait… The biggest culprit in monopoly system is that certain groups has judges who supports them,
(AKA Cops, and immunity corporations) so it puts you in disadvantage field. Polycentric law put everybody on same level field. No law that put them higher power over others. This means that judges would be randomly selected, that has no background between two parties. There would be juries randomly selected, that also has no background between two parties.

I read the book called the not so wild wild west. There were private law agencies that dealt with fraud, and thieves rather quickly than in the east colonies, under a monopoly rule of law. The way they done is to have a communication, and set up rules between two parties. So if there was a conflict, they have another 3rd party in the mix, and be the watcher. The judge job is to observe, and record that both agreed to the deal. Judge is not the decider. The judge do have a say in the matters but does not have the ruling. The ruling is determined by the juries (if yes) or both parties. The rules only applies to those parties. It will never apply to other non signers in a geographical area, like the way godvernment does. This is how usually business do.

7

@whiteoutmashups I think what @anon81773980 means is that he/she doesn’t want ‘individual rights sacrificed for the benefit of the collective’.

There are many instances where things are done that (perhaps) benefit the collective overall, while punishing the individual. Progressive taxation is (perhaps) one on the ‘right’ side of the argument, while prohibition of drugs is (perhaps) one on the left side of the argument. Both punish the individual for the ‘good’ of ‘society’, or ‘the collective’. Even worse, the drug argument can be seen as being done for the ‘good’ of the individual, also, which is very paternalistic and presumptuous. If, of course, we define ‘benefit the collective’ as meaning ‘all people benefit’, then we are clearly not talking about the same thing, as that would mean nobody received any detriment from the action.

1 Like
8

If you want to pool money to benefit the collective you can easily set that up voluntarily using crowdfunding and smart contracts for redistribution. There is no need for taxation or even a democratic vote. Say I wanted to set something up for a health care system. I would set one main pool up for people to donate to then set up sub pools for each area (let’s say town inside a provice/state) then link them with smart contracts according to some ruleset then link the sub pools to smaller pools that represented individaul health projects and set up a few more contracts to send money to individual health professionals or patients/other recipeints. Each pool could be dinated to directly so you could donate to a specific project, or on a municipal level or on a provincial level (or even a national level if you want to go up that far but I’m not addressing that here). The beaurocracy would be nil because it would be handled by smarth contracts and code. People could voluntarily opt in or out if they were eligible just like you’d sign up for any website or other program. Need money for your health? Sign up for the program. And since it’s maidsafe you could share how much safecoin with the smart contract without any human seeing how much you had. The smartcontract sees if you own more than x amount of safecoin. If yes then you’re not entitled, if no then you are. That’s assuming we want to put a wealth cap on it. But if one did that’s a secure way one could do it. And if one DIDN’T then two health systems could compete. Again one could choose with system to subscribe to, which ruleset to opt for. This kind of money pooling and redistribution could be used for health, welfare, housing the homeless, whatever. If you want to figure out insurence then think about what insurence is: it’s gambling. And on SAFE we’re bound to have plenty of bookies. In fact we’ll probably have an app for placing bets. So you want to take a bet out you’ll get sick or your property will get stolen or damaged at such and such a risk level? Be my guest.

@anon81773980 And you know what man this sounds like a lovely anarchistic society you are proposing. :smile: A world without government or taxation based on voluntary interaction.

3 Likes
9

You might want to read this. I wrote it a couple years ago before I knew about maidsafe and got involved in the project but it seems relevant to the conversation at hand. I so need to finish the series.

http://twilighthaven.ca/blog/?p=107

1 Like
10

Everybody for themselves! Survival of the fittest!..yeah…right…that old biscuit again. - and how exactly are you going to impose fines on people who don’t agree with your laws, or just fancy raping and murdering people without signing any contract?

Yup…

lol…well the first thing would be to convince enough people of the social (group) benefit of your you throwing the law away and introducing a highly individualistic political model for society, reliant on charity.

Love this btw… :smiley:

3 Likes
11

Who needs to impose fines when contracts are written in code and don’t function any other way than the way they were coded? As for good old fashioned raping and murdering you counter that with self defense and public champions/private security forces. Police have proven to be unreliable and ultimately corruptable. Police are not legally bound to protect the people, they aren’t even bound to be honest, and as has been shown in the U.S. all it takes is one profit driven psychiatrist to corrupt an entire nations police force and start a rash of police killings and leave hundreds of people dead. You either learn to defend yourself, you find someone who is willing to defend you for free, or you pay someone to defend you.

Oh I think I can help find a few of those given all the anarchists and libertarians there are and given how various governments are utterly abusing the people they supposedly serve.

12

You would have to declare the total value of all of your assets to the network in order to join up and sign something to agree to negative consequences if you were ever caught hiding wealth on a different network or in physical assets. There’d probably need to be a physical inspector too. The network or ‘state’ you’ve joined would calculate your tax rate, having signed up and declared everything, making you also eligible for the benefits being part of that network/country brings. The negative consequences I’d suggest for hiding assets would be something like fines, banishment and/or a ‘black mark’ that is recognised by other states (i.e. a criminal record) so that it’s more expensive to sign up to another one. This would prevent people from abusing multiple networks.

It’s the kind of thing that would be ideal for sea-steading as people could ‘move nation’ much more easily. Rather like an upgraded version of Ancient Greek city states. There would still need to be elections on policies (direct democracy) so the states can evolve. I don’t think it would work as well on land. Families living in the same house or area need to be part of the same state. Babies can’t decide, they have to be born into their parents state.

You’d then end up with super-rich not joining any state or clubbing together to create a tax-free state, where everyone there could pay for their own stuff privately, or minimal tax state where just some money is pooled purely because its easier to co-operate with some things.

My main point is ‘taxation by voluntary interaction’ sounds great, but there’s still no free lunch for anyone. It’s only fair that those with more contribute more, that’s the whole point and everyone will try to pay as little as possible. Visitors who are stateless could face higher fees when visiting other states. That’s an important change over the current situation, because everyone will have their block chain identity and reputation allowing for more sophisticated fee structures. The states could make contracts with each other to enforce these fees to encourage the super-rich to join a state and pay tax. Anyone who’s stateless as a result of an accident or who claims poverty would be inspected and treated differently. At the moment anyone who lives in a tax haven can travel the world at no extra cost. That can be eliminated. And because they would be a real democracies with contracts enforcing the result of the vote (though there would still need to be sub-commutes of people making decisions), those caught hiding wealth are likely to have a huge chunk confiscated as that is what the majority would probably vote to happen. So it’s actually a way to eliminate tax evasion and vastly improve the democratic functioning rather than getting rid of it. There could even be a badge of honour, ‘high rep’, reward for the super-rich stateless to join a state and pay a high tax rate which would appear on their public record. They could be rewarded with perks like front row seats at sports games, which could be nationalised and free for all to attend to help build community.

This makes so much sense for sea-steading, where many will live in the future. On land I’m not so sure, things will be more static, but a less flexible version could still be employed probably.

13

That’s one way one could do it but it’s not the only way and please note that the goal here is to get rid of taxation not import it into the safe network. Also a physical inspection would compromise one’s anonymity. I suspect that to take it to take it to that level would make one disinclined to join the network in the first place because it would defeat the purpose of using SAFE. I think you misunderstood what I was proposing. I was not proposing we introduce taxation at all. I was proposing voluntary subscription based crowdfunding. The only reason one would submit their safecoin total via smartcontract would be to offer credibility that they were indeed in need though considering that there was no way of stopping someone from faking this by transfering funds out of an account or simply creating a new one it seems rather futile. I think a better system, if we were to bother trying to verify such a thing at all, would be vetting from other users. A reputation of one one’s wealth so to speak. If people who know you state you’re poor then it’s more likely you are. If however they laugh in your face and you can’t find enough people to validate you are poor or need help then you have less credibility. Of course one might also simply say “Everyone should be entitled to healthcare or a minimum standard of living and therefore receive x amount of safecoin.” All I’m saying is it’s possible to pool money and redistribute it via smart contracts. The RULES of doing so would vary greatly.

Also i think you miss the point which is that many people, including myself, do not want government or taxation. There are many anarchists and libertarians out there. So no assuming that every “state” (and I use this term in this case very loosely to describe a group that agrees with the same philisophical values) on the safe network would agree to taxation and having it’s assets monitored or to participating in such a scheme is ludicrous. Tax evasion is not always something that is undesirable, it in fact is something to be encouraged.

1 Like
14

I like anarchy and the idea competition that could help provide social services for all at a cheap rate. But that’s also easily possible if everyone agrees. Kind of like in a socialist democracy. I’d love to see sea steading come to fruition to see how well different structures could work because I tend to take a little bit from a lot of things because nothing is ever perfect in its own. Also things change, that’s why there is two sex reproduction, gene mutation, and death. So to take a lesson from nature no one thing can work for forever. That’s why I like anarchy because it’s like a base line level and is frictionless. But there are so many people that what affects others affects you. So it’s in your best interest to see there is a healthy and well educated populous so the idiots don’t take over. But you don’t want something that is corruptable (why govt is so detested). You also don’t want your environment to be destroyed or people to be exploited because any incentive model you might use (that includes status or power) will appeal to those who wish to control or self serve at the expense of others. You also don’t want to create a system that can’t stop or be changed if things go nuts. In an anarchist view point, do you allow democracy if individuals wish to participate in it? What if it spreads and starts to dominate? I’m very into the idea but then I hear someone say property over people and that has no reflection on anarchy per se but the person rather and I think to myself um no. People are important and they should be important to you. If you want a better world then people and the environment that sustains them should be your highest priorities. Yes everyone should be free, yes govt sucks, yes bitlaw or ethereum contracts could help undermine it, yes yes yes. But why don’t people or the environment matter to most anarchists and libertarians? Also why does capitalism most of these people hard? Seems like individualistic, self serving garbage to me.

15

Ah! If the dream can come true. My dream would be that: https://www.thevenusproject.com/en/ which I personally think is more realist than this proposition.

1 Like
16

Except for all houses should have Maidsafe and the center should not be so detrimental to the circular cities function :wink: decentralize. But I like that each city is really a node that’s connected

1 Like
17

That would be subject to another topic but yeah MaidSafe can easily be on everything in that project except it should be another version of SAFENetwork. That’s because SafeCoin can’t be evolved there because there is no money evolved in that project and I suspect they will totally disagree about the SafeCoin cryptocurrency. It should be a kind of unmovable point that you gain when you share your resource to be able to have space on the network.

EDIT: Still it’s the choice of everyone to do what they want with their system.

18

Actually, people have been proven to be unreliable and ultimately corruptable, now what? Let´s get rid of people!

I can see a pattern between what you and several other individuals state: you take a group (government, police, democrats, whathaveyou) and turn individual failures into global failure, which is basically turning the principle of falsification upside down. Classical populist agenda - and this from people who claim to have a problem with politics.

There seems to be a very basic misunderstanding of what social contracts outside of safe and sound computer world mean: A protocol that does not deliver information as it should be is corrupt. A postman who does not deliver a letter as he should be is also corrupt. However, unlike the computer protocol, corruption in the interaction of equal human beings is not a bug, but a feature. Humans need to be able to be corrupt, otherwise they wouldn´t be free, they would effictively be willingless pieces of flesh. I can hardly imagine that this is something that you would like to see, but it is the eventual conclusion of your criticism on human actors to be unreliable and ultimately corruptable. We (humans) are free because we are political beings - not despite this fact. We need to be able to do bad things, to be good by not doing them.

Beyond that: To be corrupt is not a characteristic - it is a relational expression. You can only frame someone as “corrupt” or “abuse” BECAUSE you have contracts. Without contract there is no way to say that a person is corrupt or abusive. I can take away all your belongings if I´d wish so and you have no measure to complain about that but your fist and - if you´re lucky - your friends. The more friends, the better. This is the moment where societies started to arm themselves - then arming became to cost intensive and ineffective, so they created neighborhood militias, then they hired people to protect them.

Just for the record, do you have any reliable stats that demonstrate how private security forces are less prone to corruption? I mean, do you believe they are more reliable, uhm, because you set up a contract with them and pay them? Just asking, because history tells us that there is no division between “security services” and “armies”, only that in the former case the leader of the army is defined by despotism and not by election. History is filled with “security services” who overthrew their employer, my favourite is Alaric who was employed to protect Rome as a foederatus and then sieged it three times. Your criticism of the police as a corrupt entity is null - effectively you are not complaining that police is not working correctly (this would afford people to enforce law against corrupt policement), you are complaining that they are not exclusively bound to you, which is an important difference.

You misinterprete discontent with legislation and executive authorities with “anarchists and libertarians”. Beside the fact that there is no such group as “the anarchists” or “the libertarians” - this is a very heterogeneous field, being unhappy with how politics are carried out is the NORMAL case, not the exception. Radical democracy is about fighting for ideal solution while achknowledgeing that ideals are not to be reached, but to be targeted (read the different contributions by Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau with regard to that issue, they might give you different ideas of what else can be “democracy”). As always, some people like to have the advantages of society without having to deal with the disadvantages.

Anyways, gather those people who want to throw common law away and start your own poltical system. I heard those talks over and over again, and they usually ended with “in the not so distant future…”

Actually you don´t have to care about the constitution, you can also leave and create your own kingdom elsewhere. If you prefer to stay, then you should consider the easiest way: ask your fellow inhabitants if they prefer to sign the constitution or to join your “all of this is non-sense” rhetoric.

What you promote is club-law. I think you should go ahead. You´d find out soon why most people prefer a buggy law system.

2 Likes
19

Smart contracts do what they are coded to do. I suspect in 99.95% of cases they will remove the potential of litigation. You put the money in to the contract, and it did what it said it would do - done deal…

Smart notary also will eliminate a lot of need for corruption. The title for this property was in this state on this date with these signatures. There is no disputing the facts that are recorded in the blockchain. It would be a mathematical impossibility to generate the same number a different way.

Value can be shared via cryptocurrencies - much like the SAFE network does. As resources are needed , the return on providing such resources will increase, as resources are plentiful your return will reduce… Anything that is necessary can be funded in such a manner… Money isn’t necessary so much as resources are necessary.

We are really only scratching the surface on what is possible, but as technology rolls out I think centralized government will be seen more and more for what it is (One stop shopping for corruption) and crypto-funding will be superior in most cases… Time will tell - and in truth, Cryptocurrencies are not even fully invented yet… We are at the prototype level, with lots of bugs and difficult use…

1 Like
20

Lol…of course…I knew you’d have it properly covered. Just on the off-chance a person is defenseless/disabled/old etc or perhaps Batman and Charlie’s Angel’s aren’t around to help…what then? Oh I see…

What if you can’t afford to join your utopian dream of everyone walking around with armed guards?

2K Security Services……… : :smiley:

2 Likes