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

And, you know, by cables… (that´s a metaphor btw)

1 Like

Absolutely brilliant post… :smiley:
That should really have put the final nails in the Free Marketeer argument’s coffin…it won’t though…lol.
It seems to me that these alternative societal models can exist on some small scale within a larger (more sensible) social system at best. It all comes down to the land use I think…they will always need the consent and protection of the larger group majority at some point as far as I can see…if you know what I mean - not explained very well?

lol… :smiley:


Lol…they really are. OK…how about you explain why you think they are not important, seeing as though I think I’ve exhausted all the reasons as to why I think they are?

Well you missed out the word “only” this time, but yes I know and that’s why I correctly said it was an argument against your own position…what’s your point?

Yes…that’s it in a nutshell…it’s not just me that values it though, but most of society recognises that taxes have to be raised to provide for the vulnerable because a Charity based system means some people won’t pay and it risks lives by putting the vulnerable at the mercy of the philanthropy of others.
In fact, as usual,it is actually you who are in disagreement with “Society’s” values…not me, and you that wants to compel the larger group majority to accept your values.As usual you attempt to invert reality.


I am sorry, I am have trouble understanding your comments. The first statement conflicts with your second statement. human behavior and beliefs are governed by flight or fear emotional responses and for majority of humanity it is very ‘hard’ to make free will choices.

just in recent times it was illegal or a sin to be gay and women was treated as second class people because of ‘centralized’ human belief system of the ruling elite. It took hundred’s of years to change this centralized way of thinking and change our behavior within ourselves.

As long we have ruling elite class through religion and government which are centralized ruling class humanity will be lead by the Shepard like sheep to the slaughter and our beliefs and behavior in society will be dictated by our fight or fear response.

I think I sort of agree that some human behaviour and some beliefs (particularly religious) are born of a primal fear of death and that religions propagate by appealing to the more primal part of the brain via indoctrination and social re-reinforcement - I actually question to what extent we can say we have free will though…but that’s a different matter.
We are moving in the right direction however with the general demise of religious belief in the West though and more Humanistic belief systems that appeal more to the reasoning part of the brain gaining popularity.
The Fight/Flight response is part of the body’s natural reaction to extreme stress and to do with the nervous system. I think if you were “governed” by this to the exclusion of other inputs, you’d be having panic attacks all the time…maybe :smiley:

1 Like

That´s not a problem, I will explain them to you. But first off, let me say that I´m bit tired of what I consider as Gish Gallop, so would you mind explaining what “doing for society” and “taking from society” means. I mean, yes, very specifically.

Also, I´d like you to comment on how you came up with skipping the whole material determination of digital technology when you wrote

Every answer is appreciated.

Now, let´s explain!

I think it´s a bit odd that you say “centralized” when talking about historic development in society and skip the differences of decision taking. The examples you name are VERY diverse.

  1. discrimination of gay people: had nothing to do with the exclusion of gay people from political decisions. In Germany being gay was illegal I think until the late 70s. That didn´t mean that gay people were excluded from political decisions. They were allowed to vote, even when they were in prison. However, in the discourse of society there was a strong political agenda against gay people. This was an agenda of a social majority. I would have fought against it, actually I did and do it still, but it had anything to do with exclusion from political decision taking. A majority had issues with gay.

  2. discrimination of women: the example is very diverse by itself. Women were excluded from political decision taking for a long time in most modern states (this is not a chronological development btw as you suggest, there have been many political systems which didn´t exclude women from politics. Lower class exclusion was imho much more universal than the exclusion of women, but anyway). Women right movements have brought women into politics - this alone did not take away all discrimination and today there is still a lot of discrimination from what I think - but now the difference (same as in the case of gay people) is we are not anymore dealing with a systemic problem with regard to politics - it´s again a “problem” of dicourse.

You know, I heard this argument often and find it a mixture of boring and insolent. What you say is that people who support a political system must be innocent sheeps who naively follow the rulers. Of course, unlike me, you are not a sheep. You belong to the enlightened one´s who know how the world ticks. But I must tell you, you rather sound like a shepard who is unsatisfied that his sheeps are running in the wrong way. Your main point seems to be that at some point there will be no more ruling class, pretty marxist btw. That´s a nice idea, however, I am a pragmatist. I am working with the things that are, not with how people draw up their utopia in sticky chambers. Maybe in the future there will be no government as we know it today, actually I hope it won´t stay this way, but improve. Anyway, there will always be governance if you like it or not. You are not proposing an alternative to governance, you propose that your ideals are governing people, and I - as many others - oppose.

1 Like

I am saying the human race is programmable from a centralized authoritarian class whom control the information one receives. nazi Germany was a great example of this where the ruling class went as far as burning books and controlling the air waves. Now this is still the case today where isreal education system uses the same techniques to indoctrinate it people into fear and hatred.
people belief’s and behavior are controlled depending where you sit on the food chain and 99% of the human race are on the bottom. The bottom feeders are sub human and need their beliefs and behaviors controlled or we would go into anarchy society where people could choose how to live their own life.
Instead we are kept busy working as wage slaves and left tired and robotic and left with very little to independently to think for ourselves. we become so beaten down to support a consumer lifestyle because we believe in owning the best money can buy makes us worth more as a person giving ourselves a high status. This is unproductive because it only destroys our environment and makes the people below you on the food chain suffer greatly because we indirectly stolen wealth of being to service our own needs.

So we become sheep to the almighty Sheppard to the good sheep whom step inline get a pat on the head and good ooh boy, the naughty sheep uncontrollable get locked away in the yard, and when master say’s it time for war because that Shepard over their will not feed our family family fresh grass and all your beliefs and your freedoms you think you have on the farm will be gone. You will say "yes sir’ " three bags full’

I think people do not have the belief or the free will, that as collective we can govern ourselves.

what you forgot to say…you are, of course, not controlled!

You drank a magical potion that allows you to resist the allmighty controlling forces. You are able to see the truth, where we can´t see it because we are dazzled by evil forces. We don´t really like to pay taxes, we are just made believe we want!

Your argumentation is in any way different than missionaries’

And, as expected, you didn´t comment my questions. Classic gish-gallop.

1 Like

You are afraid that others will not value what you do. The only way people’s lives will be at risk is if the cause you are trying to raise funds for loses value or the charitible method you are using loses reputation. Therefore in stressing that the only way to ensure the security of people’s lives is to coerce people to pay you are in essece saying that you are insecure in the value of your own cause because you are unsure of whether people would actually value it and willingly pay for it given a free choice. If you are so certain that all of society believes in your cause then WHY do you need to coerce them into paying? So what if some people wouldn’t? I thought you had a majority? I thought most people agreed with your cause that we need social safety nets and collaborative redistribution methods. So if you are correct that most people value these social safety nets so strongly and if you are correct that most people believe in pooling their funds into redistribution methods that you suggest then WHY do you feel so insecure in the fact that they would CHOOSE to do so freely without being compelled to do so? And why do you feel that those who would opt not to are such a threat?


Yes, I’ve already clearly said that. The preceding sentences made little sense to me and I don’t know how you got to use “Therefore”…lol.

Again, I’ve already very clearly said that I don’t… . I also, can’t both be “so certain” all society agrees with me at the same time as being “unsure” if all society agrees with me, surely you can see as you’re typing that you must be misrepresenting my position somehow?

So what if some people wouldn’t? I thought you had a majority?

Wouldn’t what? Pay tax or donate to charity? I’m sure I’ve already answered both anyway…and it is a majority view I believe.

Yet again, already very clearly answered…human nature, game theory, past experience etc

And why do you feel that those who would opt not to are such a threat?

They are a threat to the vulnerable and to the infra-structure needed for the smooth running of society, as I said, I see it as anti-social behaviour. Are you seriously now suggesting that those that would want to “opt out” of a scheme that benefits the weak and vulnerable are likely to instead donate to charity and become all philanthropic and charitable?..Come on man…
As to the coercion and compulsion issues - I ain’t getting back on that again…its been publicly flogged to death …hmmm… :smiley:

1 Like

Exactly the same? Seriously?

You are suggesting that social ostracism is equivalent to violent punishment. Totally different approaches.


The problem with government social programs is that all love is lost. The giver feels taxed, the receiver feels entitled, and you have a bureaucracy in the middle that is mechanical and rigid. If you fit x requirements you get y benefits – Because I fit x requirements I deserve y benefits… Without the slightest care about where those benefits came from…

Private Charity is preferable because the Receiver feels blessed, the giver feels generous, and both parties know that sacrifices where made out of caring. The sense of entitlement is significantly less. You can see that money is coming out of somebody’s pocket to provide for you and that leads you to want to be more self-dependant, as that nice guy ought not be burdened…

There is still debate about how sustainable these programs are. Social Security in the US is pretty insolvent, aside from printing money or increasing taxes to the moon.

Private charity isn’t a perfect solution, but I prefer it as the solution of first resort rather than the solution of last resort. It would be much better to have a system that is insured to work, but still maintained love and responsibility… You could probably build insurance systems that could make 'the best of both worlds" more feasible. Crytpo-coins and smart contracts could facilitate such.


Exactly the same…seriously…

No, I am suggesting that social ostracism is equivalent to social ostracism.
Society decides what punishments are handed out for anti-social behaviour. :smiley:


The main reason Social security is rather insolvent in the US is because it’s funds where intermingled with the government’s, and “borrowed” away to nothing.

If you where to put money into a smart contract instead, many of the problems would not exist…


This makes no sense, sorry. Ostracism is completely different to violent punishment.


Yeah so what? That’s their choice. If you see it as antisocial behaviour then get your campaigner shoes on and start trying to motivate people to do more good.

Quite possibly yes. There are many reasons why one wouldn’t want to opt into a money pool and redistribution system. One might not agree on how things were being redistributed, one might just want to use direct action instead, one might want to set up one’s own charity or one might have a family to support and only be able to donate on an irregular shedule. The assumption that because one does not want to contribute a set amount or percentage of their income on a regular basis and therefore does not care is a fallacy and a stereotype.

This is what I’ve been saying. Voluntary interaction and charity changes the entire emotional dynamic between people. You can’t legislate generosity.


I wanted this thread to be technical only but it won’t work since it is flooded with arguments, and political debates.

Two choices.

At comment 225, debates about political stuff must be stopped. I established new rules, which is written in first post. From 225 and on, will be technical stuff only, and discussion about building polycentric society.


I will start new threads with more technical info. All of the political debates goes to this thread. I personally think this is a better option.

What do you guys think?

Either way, I am looking for people who are willing to help me out with the technical stuff.

Lastly, I will talk to moderators to remove political discussions in my new threads. If you guys pick the first option, then after 225, moderators will start deleting political discussions.

I want serious technical discussions about building the application that I and other envision. I have no time to discuss how glorious godvernment is.

1 Like

I think perhaps having two threads is a good idea but instead of deleting posts just move the political conversation to the “political conversation” thread" as the conversation IS important to the coding, it just needs to stay in it’s own little area.

Whether we do this by creating a new technical thread or create a political thread and just MOVE all the political posts there it’s all good. Though I must admit that’ll be a lot of posts to move.

I agree with this.

I will change the topic to Political Discussion on Polycentric Law.

My new threads will be for bitlaw technical stuff.

Any nay?

Sounds great works for me.

1 Like