BitLaw - Polycentric Law in Crypto-Space (part 2)

That’s one model however one could also actually create a cooperative and share equal ownership with the socialist(s). Think of a pie. You have a whole pie, then you cut it into slices. You each get one and own an individual slice. Each co-owner would be free to use the land, sell it back to the collective or sell his share to someone else. But the original owner could not demand that the property control simply return to him unless he had a controlling percentage of the shares. And even then he’d still need to buy out the remaining socialists in order to fully get them out. Think North West Trading Company or Westjet not Hudson’s Bay Company or Canada Airlines.

That is a great explanation. This would be a better approach dealing with statist, and socialist. As well as for them dealing with anarchist, and capitalist. It puts everybody on equal footing ground. This gave me a much clear picture.

Firstly, the property owner add the coin aspect with creating StructuredData assets for claimed owned property assets.

Secondly, the property owner distribute the shares to the shareholders. In the share(StructuredData) contains;

Main clause
Proof of property
proof of signatures of the said contract

The shareholder’s share (StructuredData) contains;

sub clauses
proof of signatures of the said contract
user clauses
proof of signatures of the said contract

Sub clauses is similar to like what I implied in previous thread about reddit and subreddit. This could be useful for between two parties inside of the company, or community. It can be modified anytime, which will have to re-signed. If no signature given frametime, the data is lost. This maintains the rules without conflicting the outside parties. In these clauses includes automated billing information which is useful for paying loans, dues, electricity, water, and so forth.

By selling the asset back the rightful owner, the person withdrawn his consent. The value of the asset decreases. It then concerns with the company or community of why he or the people are selling assets back to the owner. Eventually, if it were bad enough, he would lose those business, and customers. Now he has complete own of his property with no value. He has two choices, sell to someone else or re build it for better.

One could easily collaborate with the community, and decide to sell majority of the shares back to the owner. Those group of people would obtain new shares from new property owner at different location. And then re-establish back to where they left off. Even more so, the shareholders does not have to move if they were living in a different space. They could use that property for community gathering, or work environment, or whatever. They could easily withdrawn their consent, and find another property that provide better service for their community. If they were living in that space, then they would have to move.

2 Likes

I spend the last couple hours going back to my earliest work and found several things that would well with this idea.

User will have two directories in the safenetwork.

His personal directory is shared between private peers. It is basically a contact list on your phone, with collaboration tools. Each contact contains contracts between him, and the other party. It also includes community / companies contacts. The users/product/community/company shares are stored in this directory. It also includes billing information, invoice, and others. Anything below the main clause are private, and only known between selected party members within main clause. It can also interact the outside of the community such as doing business with other company/community.

His public directory is shared to all. This is his repository. He stores his contracts, and bookmarks favorite contracts from other repositories.

The contracts will be using toml format. This will allow us to build bitlaw repository(Exactly like cargo), where we all can upload contracts, and share. No signature needed. It is so that we don’t have to rebuild it every time. This is a collaboration tool to build and share contracts.

This is copy and paste from my earliest idea. With some modifications.

How contracts are created and stored. I want to rent a seahouse from this particular guy. You both set up a collaboration tool, to make an agreement.

terminal: $ blaw --new seahouse_rent --to userid
connecting user…
opening the file…

[seahouse_rent]
author = [“grizmoblust insertname@coinmail”]
dob = "1/1/1900"
ID = " "
sig = "insert pgp"
name = "seahouse_rent"
version = “0.0.2”

[dependencies.steasteading_terms]
source = “bitlaw/someuser/steasteading_terms”

The dependencies will grab the contract if it has not been signed, and stored in your directory. It searches in the blaw repository, and grab the version it requested. Each version can be chosen.

This could get out of hand quite easily, it needs organize in subtle, readable form. The folder and files system would look like this…

~.bitlaw
~./bitlaw.d/
     seahouse_rent/
	seahouse_rent.blaw
	seahouse_rent.d/
		insertusername_clause.blaw
     sea_community/
	seasteading_community.blaw
	seasteading_community.d/
		insertusername_clause.blaw
property_assets.blaw
property_assets.d/
        houseproperty_shares.blaw

Reminder that .blaw is exactly the same as .toml. Create a programmable contract system that parses .blaw data, and automate the billing system. Let’s go back to the seahouse_rent.blaw, to allow the program parse the bill info. This would be much easy, and readable.

[seahouse_rent]
author = [“grizmoblust insertname@coinmail”]
dob = "1/1/1900"
ID = " "
sig = "insert pgp"
name = "seahouse_rent"
version = "0.0.3"
asset = “insert asset number from property owner”

[billing]
month = 1500
date = 8/16/2016
ends = 2/16/2017

Beautiful. No need to be nerdy like ethereum on programmable contracts. Just use toml format, and have the program automate. Does that sound good?

Want a Bike Path? Pay for It Yourself

Wow 36K$, that’s enough to finance 20cm highway :slight_smile:

1 Like

You know what’s funny, your logic always depends on a judge, but you refuse to accept a public one. In your examples YOU act as an (almighty) judge.

The example you didn’t comment in the other thread:

[quote=“Artiscience, post:176, topic:4731”][quote=“Blindsite2k, post:170, topic:4731”]
Say one owns their own land, has an off grid self sufficient home, grows their own food, has their own water, and has a job or sells produce for any excess they might need. What physical or social structures are they asking for free?
[/quote]

"Nice utopian case. The problem starts where you say that a person “owns” land. Ownership either requires public law or exists exclusively in your vocabulary - not in mine. I, as your neighbor, will simply come and say that you are using my land for free and I will bring my buddies who confirm that because, you know, we people from the region don’t like you. So, shoosh, shoosh, away from my land.[/quote]

Oh, PS, you know who justified a war with the need to defend? Everyone.

1 Like

[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:19, topic:4755”]
Why is a legal process nessesary?[/quote]

Because some people think that risking killing someone is completely justified in the face of possibly losing a bit of rental income & some bother.

2 Likes

It makes me think of trying to get people to accept and poliferate an idea. You can have an idea, any idea, but unless people agree with you all you have is a piece of paper and a concept that no one else shares. You can say “I want to genetically engineer dinosaurs, ride around on a Tyranasaurus Rex and have the world send me their women who will all worship at my feet.” The people of the world reply “Um no we think not. Go pound sand.” An idea, a law or property value must be accepted in order for it to be of value.

I was also thinking earlier that we should keep things very modular. That is each individual law/rule should be all it’s own. Do you want taxation yes/no? Do you want to pool money for x cause? yes/no? What percent threshold or amount would you give to x cause? Do you believe y should be allowed? Under x condition should y be allowed? And so on. Everyone seems to believe in mostly the same things but pretty much no one believes in them the same way so keeping things modular seems to make sense. Basically at the end of the day everyone would have their own taylor made legal code. You could have custom groupings like “Statist - Communist - Marxist Custom Mix 1” “Statist - Socialist - Custom Mix 1” “Statist - Socialist - Social Democrat Mix 2” “Statist - Socialist - Obama Fanboy” “Socialist - NDP” “Socialist - Labour Party” “Capitalist - Republican” “Capitalist - Anarchist” “Capitalist - Harper Fanboy” “Capitalist - Libertarian” “Communist - Anarchist” And so on. Just lay out different “default” configurations that are known. Then let people mix and match what settings don’t fit their political philosophy. Like me there are things I agree with that are traditionally on the “Left” like gay rights and marriage, or ending the war on drugs but also things on the “Right” like the right to bear arms, free speech, and gov’t staying out of the marketplace. Also the marketplace staying out of government. But my point being I wouldn’t fit into “The Left” anymore than I fit into “The Right” nor do I fit into “The Center” or any party for that matter. So instead of “choosing the lesser” of two or three or four evils why not just keep things modular and customize the settings to fit one’s political philosophy?

Another idea was that we need some way for people to market things like charities or political campaigns or whatever. Yes I’m sure this could be done with social media but I think this should be an important part of the app. Getting the word out about events what ever they may be will be essential for all parties in all different poltical backgrounds.

Another thought is that Bitlaw could easily be forked to create the basis of a personal networking app, either for personal relationships or business. Much of what we are building here is social sphere networking, finding people who are of like minded and connecting those that believe the same things. The same goes for those building personal and professional relationships. And so while I believe such projects would be seperate I do believe they would be very similar and share much the same code.

Why would one require a third party judge? And you seem resentful that one could make their own determinations, come to their own conclusions and make their own decisions about life. Do you always need a third party to make decisions for you?

Well if there is a public record if me owning that land you have no legal or moral precident to evict me or claim ownership. But if it comes to a direct fight then so be it. You claim you own the land and I don’t. I claim the land and you don’t. And we end up duking it out. That’s why we invented land ownership claims and proof of ownership. But if you don’t recognize that then it would come to direct confrontation as has happened historically in such cases.

And your point being? The goal here is to create polycentric law not world peace.

And what do you think the legal process would solve? Say one went to court. Judge rules the eviction notice is valid and he has to leave. He refuses, He doesn’t even show up to court. They send the cops in and the same thing happens with the officers only he ends up shot instead of bouncing on concrete and walking away. And yes you risk getting hurt or killed if you tresspass. There are people that will SHOOT you dead if you tresspass on their property, they put up signs to warn you. Trespassing and staying after an eviction is no small matter. And they would be LEGALLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO DO SO! Again you do not need a judge if you know the law and know what your legal rights are.

I say again why is the judge nessesary and why is the legal process nessesary? What is being arbitrated? Your opinion if whether it is acceptable for me to use such force is irrelivant so long as I’m within my rights to do so. Is it legal for one to forcibly evict a tennent if they refuse to leave? Yes/no If yes the onus is on them to know the law and get out when asked. If no the onus is till on them, and oneself to still know the law and for one to find alternate eviction methods.

Also I think this brings up a good point. What happens when individuals with conflicting legal codes interact and their legal codes conflict? How is jurisdiction determined?

Oh and I think this article is something y’all want to read over.

http://osf1.gmu.edu/~ihs/w91issues.html

Especially this particular little quote here.

After a wide review of the field,
Benson concludes that each customary legal system has six basic features:

  1. a predominant concern for individual rights and private property;
  1. laws enforced by victims backed by reciprocal agreements;
  1. standard adjudicative procedures established to avoid violence;
  1. offenses treated as torts punishable by economic restitution;
  1. strong incentives for the guilty to yield to prescribed punishment due to the threat of social
    ostracism; and
  1. legal change via an evolutionary process of developing customs and norms. (Benson, 1990, p. 21)

The whole article gives a historical reference of polycentric law. I especially find it interesting that polycentric law was very widespread before the introduction of the state and fiat currency (which also interestingly are closely linked) and that polycentric law is now having a revival now that fiat currency is declining and cryptocurrency is being introduced more and more (and subsequently the state is losing more and more power).

[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:28, topic:4755”]
And what do you think the legal process would solve? Say one went to court. Judge rules the eviction notice is valid and he has to leave. He refuses, He doesn’t even show up to court. They send the cops in and the same thing happens with the officers only he ends up shot instead of bouncing on concrete and walking away.[/quote]

A good legal process being followed followed prevents individuals fighting to decide whether someone will be evicted or not, and risking lives in the process.

I’ve never heard of someone getting shot by police during an eviction - that’s incredibly unlikely (I’m from the UK, so police generally have no guns, and even in the US, I’m sure few evictions end in shootings!).

Also, without a legal process, if the misbehaving tennant is stronger / more violent / better connected than the landlord - should they be alowed to stay because they can’t be overpowered? Is it just a case of who can hire the most force to get their way?

2 Likes

So, you just now realise the “point” that has been put to you numerous times in previous posts

You even ask the question yourself more than once and others before it dawns on you.

And they would be LEGALLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO DO SO!

Rights according to who? I’m sorry but you are all over the place with self-contradictory positions all the time. You ask why we need common law, judges etc and propose the obviously totally ridiculous idea that everybody lives by different laws within the same locale. This is just comic book guy stuff.
Everybody will definitely have to be careful to read the small print in your “smart” contracts wouldn’t they?
Can you imagine what clauses a tenancy agreement with “2k Housing Association” would look like - “any tenants found remaining on the property at expiry of their lease will be liable to be battered and thrown off the 2nd floor balcony”…lol
I can just picture the sign on the front lawn “Please do not walk on the grass - trespassers will be anally gang raped”.
Total madness… :smiley:

2 Likes

There was no debate about whether to evict someone but rather how to enforce said eviction.

Nah in the U.S. cops just shoot you if you look at them funny or are impolite to them or something. Seriously you must be suicidal to call the cops if you live in the U.S. It’s not quite that bad in Canada yet but it’s slowly getting there. Hopefully Harper will be voted out and things will get back on track more or less.

Why do you think my last landlady made a point to keep a martial artist around as well as a few other guys to help when unruly tennents started acting out? If all it takes is a beligerent well connected tennent to usurp the ownership of your premisis then you can’t very well call yourself a reliable landlord or landlady now can you? If that’s all it takes to cow the landlord then imagine what they’re doing to the other tennents. You can’t rely on cops to come save you. There were a few incidents, one occassion in fact that I indeed resorted to calling the cops (and I HATE doing that, I REALLY hate doing that) and it took them several minutes to get there. During those minutes the martial artist guy (yes the same guy that ejected the unruly tennent in the previous story) stuck around and guarded me from a beligerant neighbour. On other occasions there were people freaking out and yelling threats and tennents downstairs (I know because I heard them) and again it wasn’t the cops that came to save us it was other tennents covering for each other. Cops take a good 5 or 10 minutes to get anywhere, at least. A lot can happen in that time. And that’s IF you live in an area (country, province, city or neighbourhood) where it’s safe to call cops. You can’t rely on the law or the state to save you.

1 Like

Well according to the local law of the land in that case. Or if you’re referring to polycentric law according to oneself and whoever they contract with. Law is only law is if someone agrees with you and then it’s only law between those agreeing parties. Therefore law is basically an agreement between consenting parties. So yeah it would refer to either a) conventionally local law or b) polycentric law contracts.

Well probably not that extreme but that was worth a giggle and is kind of the jist of it yes.

Okay this just cracked me up and was hilarious. No absolutely not. I hate grass. Please kill the grass for me. I will pay you a commision to kill my grass! I hate the stuff and it’s annoying to try and wipe out so that you can plant on top of it. I’d prefer to plant a garden and grow food not a lawn.

1 Like

you need to have an impartial third party to resolve a dispute. if somebody tresspass your property, you can’t just shoot him and the case is over. because maybe he wasn’t tresspassing, you just invited him over for a cup of coffee and you shoot him because you don’t like his smile that day or just for fun. that’s why an investigation needs to be done and a debate(legal process in which the facts of the issues, resulted from investigations, have to be presented to an impartial third party) needs to be held. the problem is the impartiality of the third party. same with government. the politicians, the judges and all the third parties and decision makers should be stripped of priviledges and it is a must to have some separate laws. more punishable laws, not like nowadays, where they have immunity and better laws. this is what i don’t understand, and this is, in my opinion, what needs to be changed in order to reach for better impartiality. if they decide to be third parties, they decide that by themselves, and they know they are not allowed to have kids (for example), or won’t be able to hold more than x amount of money (another example). this way they are less likely to be corrupted. the old greeks came to this conclusions, i think. anyway, nowadays we have technology. maybe technology would solve much more problems, and maybe we live long enough to enjoy this.

1 Like

You do realize that by making this statement you have done a couple different things.

  1. You have called into question one’s word of honor. (political philosophy)

  2. Assumed that one or both parties even cares about “justice.” (Political philosophy #2)

  3. Assumed that the defendent would consent to the investigation and that they wouldn’t be insulted by your questioning their word in the first place.

  4. Assume it proper to impose your legal and moral sensibilities onto someone else that may or may not be in your legal jurisdiction. Did either party consent to a legal code which makes murder or shooting someone because one didn’t like their smile an offense? And does their legal code require a judge in this case?

We are not all trying to come to consensus on what THE LAW should be here. We are trying to figure out ways to make a flexible app that will allow people with like minded legal philosophies to connect, for legal contracts and interact with one another.

As for the jurisdiction issue I think I have an idea. There will probably be a fair amount of common conflicts. Are you willing to pay tax when nessesary? Are you willing to waive paying taxes when nessesary? Are you willing to waive rights to copyright? Are you willing to read/view or keep from read/viewing x material? Are you willing to obey tresspassing laws? Are you willing to take responsibility for defending yourself in this area? (Lest you be axe murdered.) Are you willing to tolerate guns/gayrights/uncensored freedom of speech? That kind of thing. You’d go through the list and check off which ones you’d consent to, which ones you MIGHT consent to given a possible circumstance in which case when the issue comes up you get a prompt, and which ones are a definite NO you will not consent to. Save the settings. When new circumstances and conflicts come up that you’ve never seen before come up you again get prompted to make a choice how will you respond and will you consent, the other guy also is prompted and if your choices are compatible you interact. If not you go your separate ways. If someone wants you to pay taxes on a product and you are unwilling then you don’t interact with them, but you also don’t get to buy the product.

I’d also like to mention that even in modern regular law that if someone is of another jurisdiction or has not consented to the law of a given area it doesn’t apply. You see this in practice with free men on the land.

1 Like

Lol…this is too funny…“guarded you”? So don’t tell me your neighbour had a problem with you…surely not… :smiley:
So, let’s get this straight…the big bad Anarchist was hiding behind some other guy, then, who does he call to avoid he himself getting into a fight, but the Statist police, that he’s proposing getting rid of…and you do this even though according to yourself there is a good chance they will shoot you…yeah.right!..
All over the place…

You can’t rely on the law or the state to save you.

You just gave a perfect anecdotal example of exactly the opposite - well done again.
Youjust do the same thing, over and over, whatever the argument, whatever the thread…I don’t really take you seriously tbh

  1. The cops around here seem half decent. 2. I still don’t like cops anyway and hated the whole experience quite frankly. 3. It wasn’t my idea nor would I have called them if it was just me. But the fact is the dude was being a pain for the entire complex and the fact he tried to force his way into my appartment set a legal precident to have the cops come and give him a talking to, which in turn would scare the pants off him, and also give further grounds to evict him should he continue to act out. 4. And I did say IN THE STATES they’ll shoot you.

Really? So what would have happened if while waiting for the cops I hadn’t had someone looking out for me and the guy had tried coming back up and breaking into my appartment again?

Funny I don’t really need your approval.

As per, you invert the argument…but I’ll answer the ill posed question directly as it stands though. Your question pertains only to the interim few minutes before the police arriving- so what you are really complaining of is the police not arriving instantaneously.
You had clearly decided that the police were the solution to your problem, not the neighbour…otherwise you wouldn’t have called them would you? You were relying on the police, not the neighbour - therefore you are hypocritically, and disingenuously advocating one thing and believing/doing another - this is what gives the game away with you…you contradict yourself all the time and it’s really too ridiculously easy to trip you up…you don’t believe a word of what you yourself are saying …clearly.
The real question, posed in the correct way is “What if the police weren’t there to call?” -…as you well know
Edit:
Anyway, just out of interest……what did you do to your neighbour to piss him off so much to want to break into your flat and batter you? Was the sign on your door written too small, that he didn’t see it?
“Please do not trespass on my doormat or I’ll shit on your door step”……lol

1 Like

Apparently you did not read what I said therefore I shall repeat it.

Taking OTHER PEOPLE’S feelings and sensibilies into consideration does not make me a hypocrite as my decision did not affect only myself, nor was it just “my problem”, nor was I ignorant of the fact that should this kind of thing escalate the obvious question would be why didn’t I report it in the first place. There is more to life that bloody politics, or sticking to own ideologies, especially when I have to consider how things would affect other people and what risk or harm they might be put in.

If the police weren’t there to call I’d be under less threat of having to worry about having to report the vile little troglydite to them in the first place now wouldn’t I had having the nessesity of having to call them. And if the police weren’t there I’d be free to kick his obnoxious posterior the next time he tried to pull something, or I could have just bashed him over the head with my staff when he was trying to break into my appartment, or I could have gone down afterwards. Or any number of other nasty things but I didn’t and quite frankly at the time I wasn’t really in the mood to deal with him at all and was rather freaked out by the whole experience.

As for what I did to him? I did nothing. His main complaint seemed to be he could hear me moving around my appartment, the sound proofing in those appartments sucks and I was on the floor above. He particularly didn’t like the fact my jam fell out of my fridge every time I opened the blloody fridge door. It annoyed me too but what am I going to do? Or other such noises, things happen, magnet spice jars or brooms get knocked down. Life happens. So basically the guy got drunk and decides to come up and try and force his way in because he’s aggrivated about the noise which I really can’t do much about.

gosh…you don´t want to get it, right? Ok, let´s go this through, veeeeery slowly

Individually you may claim to own the whole world - socially you need others to acknowledge your ownership, otherwise your claim is irrelevant - and since we are talking about social impact, your argument does not make any sense.

Your whole argumentation is based on the assumption that there is some legal or moral superiority of a smart contract, but there is 0 reason why it should have such superiority - neither in anarchy nor in liberal democracy nor in any other political system. Collectively you as an idividual cannot own anything - codification is anything but safeguarding and without contract enforcement a contract is anything but a piece of paper or a file in a database. You know that - you just propose club law instead of common law.

Uhm…let´s see, my point is: I don´t allow you to decide for me whether you are defending yourself or attacking me when you shoot me. How about that? You provided the perfect argument for the police to shoot Michael Brown. Congratulation! (oh, and also the perfect argument for the Soviet Union to attack Poland in 1939, Israel invading Egypt in the Suez crisis and the US to invade Iraq in 2003) Your logic does not differ from despotism - only that you (luckily) have any power.

EDIT: this one is too good:

How dare you questioning the honor of uhm…someone…HOW DARE YOU! Besides: honor is no general concept. It´s an expression of affiliation to a specific moral codex.

P.S.: I´m getting an idea why you are calling yourself Blindsite…

2 Likes

As a very general contribution to the “polycentric law” thingy: the comparison of smart contracts with social contracts (laws) testifies a lack of understanding of what social interaction of humans is and how material entities differ from digital entities. If you “send” Bitcoins, you decentrally set up a contract between you and the receiver. The contract - and this is the crucial point - is carried out within(!) the system and it cannot be rejected.

To define a law, you need a system and legal subjects & objects within the system. Bitcoins exist on/in the blockchain, we humans don´t. Luckily. The source of our freedom is to say “I prefer not to” and live with the consequences. You can establish a decentralized voting system or a decentralized law system - as long as human life does not take place on the blockchain/decentralized network, there is no ultimate(!) way to find social consensus within the system. You need to find it where humans live.

1 Like