The problem with this idea is that it does not address the real problem, crime, but instead attempts to provide a decentralized solution to an existing tactic (following the money). Unfortunately, following the money is a terrible and ineffective tactic that has tremendous negative externalities.
I have been playing with various ideas on providing decentralized 'law enforcement' with the ultimate goal being that it should, in theory, be able to also prevent 'legal plunder' and 'official crime'.
The problem is how do we define 'crime' in a universal / decentralized manner that 'no one can disagree with'. It seems to me that the only standard that anyone can be held to is 'their own standard' and if someone were to break their 'own law' as judged by 'their own court' that it indisputable that they are in the wrong and owe RESTITUTION to someone. What is needed is the following:
1) A crypto-graphic secure / unique identity.
2) A set of laws 'independent' laws that are 'brand name' and widely known. The market would provide these contracts.
3) An individual would select the subset of these laws they agree to follow and sign them with their ID.
- this subset need not be public, but can be presented only to those you do business with.
4) An individual would select a subset of trusted courts to be judged under.
5) Before doing business with an individual, validate that they have agreed to a compatible subset of laws AND that they have no judgements against them by their own courts.
6) Shun anyone who has unsatisfied judgments against them.
7) Charge people without a trusted ID more than those who validate their ID.
I started to put my ideas together on a new website: the-iland.net
The iLand is a new free market solution that aims to secure life, liberty, and property for its members.
The key ingredients to this solution include:
- Individuals publicly commit to abide by their own standard of law.
- Individuals publicly commit to arbitrate via one or more courts of their own choosing.
- Individuals deposit a security bond with one or more trusted agencies.
- Individuals share the burden of injustice by contributing to a common fund.
- Individuals shun anyone whom fails to arbitrate or abide by the outcome.
If such a system could gain wide-spread adoption (read details on my website) then ultimately peer pressure and 'self interest' would eliminate anti-social behavior by government agents. Public judgements could be issued against cops, IRS agents, etc and these people will end up having to change their ways. Politicians would have to explain why they will not abide by the same laws as the rest of us or why they will not appear for arbitration in a 'fair court'.