Topic: Solution to Decentralized Law [The iLand Nation] (Read 1921 times)

My apologies if I implied a top-down decision. Markets make decisions too, you know.

Big Brother decided that the lingua franca will be Newspeak.

Happy fun, and good luck iOceania.

I would imagine the 'producer of said law' would translate their law into as many languages as possible and declare the 'intent' that they all have the same 'meaning'.   It would then be the courts job to interpret said laws.   Then the market would debate and critique laws that have potential for ambiguity in the different languages.   

The real question is:  what motive is there to create new laws?   The answer is that any business that believes there is a significant flaw / liability with accepting a law with potential translation ambiguity would be motivated to correct that ambiguity and then require others to accept the deviation/clarification before doing business with them.

Thus everyone is motivated to find the most clear wording for the same law among all languages.

A lingua franca would have to be decided upon. English is the most likely, or we could use a constructed one such as Lojban.

How will it be possible to check if two laws written in different languages are equal?

I am very torn over how to proceed in making this idea a reality, clearly there are many things to implement:

1) Secure Identity
       - anonymous interactions and 'secure' interactions mostly incompatible.
       - they should not be 'throw away' and to prevent this identities need to be mined.  The more difficulty a hash that is found the more 'unique' the identity and the more 'costly' to discard.
       - they need to be easy to 'use' and by that I mean 'sign and validate contracts'.

2) Insurance Fund
       - The terms / conditions need to be defined.
       - Trusted parties would need to hold the funds / Evaluate claims.

3) Surety Bond
        - Once again, a trusted party is required to hold the surety and disperse it to victims when presented an arbitration decision.


I am a software engineer and could handle creating phone apps, desktop apps, and web interfaces but this idea requires a level of critical mass and 'commitment'.  So initially we need a setup that can be done 'manually' and we can add automation as the idea catches on.   The 'manual' approach would be the following:

Individuals write up proposed 'laws' that they would be willing to follow.  Then people can sign those laws with one of their bitcoin addresses.    Initially agreed laws can all be kept 'public' so someone can write a law by starting a 'forum post' and people can sign the law by posting the signature + bitcoin address.

Among these 'laws' is an agreement to arbitrate, perhaps http://judge.me.

Then we need some trusted individuals to hold funds in escrow/surety and then publish a list of bitcoin 'IDs' + escrow amount.

But the most critical feature here is the Injustice Insurance Fund.  This is something that could provide value to people now if we can identify the terms under which contributions are made and funds paid out.   It would also require an advanced commitment of enough people before it could start accepting funds.  Providing a means to audit this fund would also be important.   

So for those of you who like this idea and want to see it happen, lets talk about how to make it happen.   In my view, this is more than just an idea it is a course of action that is achievable if enough people sign on.

I like this. Definitely going to look into it more.

The key here is not that everyone has to participate, but that good, honest people choose to participate.   Who cares what Muslims or Christians ultimately decided to do.  Because this is a non-violent group of voluntary association / disassociation there are no crusades or 'violent mobs' etc.    They may exist outside such a community, but anyone inside it would immediately forfeit their surety and insurance coverage if they decided to get violent contrary to one of their signed agreements.

And then we will have crusades! Deus lo vult! For Jerusalem! 

'mob justice' and 'non-violent justice' are very different in my mind.   Democracy is 'mob justice'.   In fact, what we have today isn't even 'justice' it is 'revenge' without accountability for mistakes.   Democracy is 'arbitrary power'.

If your idea of justice is violence then clearly you missed the entire point.

Decentralized law sounds like mob justice.

Hell, I luv this approach! I've added this thread to my favorites.

Yes, I have a lot to write, I will let you know when I have that posted.

The summary is this:

Anyone can write a 'law' and market it.  The law would have an identifiable logo.  Anyone who finds the law agreeable can then 'sign' the law with their identity (keep it private).   When you do business with someone you exchange 'signed laws' via a 'phone bump' and your phone will identify whether or not the other person has agreed to the 'subset' of standardized laws that you require for your business.  If not, then you can politely decline or ask them to accept some other law.

The key here is that the laws are mostly 'simple' or 'bundled' and the best laws are accepted by all so the market pressure will tend to move people toward a common set required for doing business.

Those who require outrageous laws will find fewer people with whom to do business.

One KEY aspect is the non-violent enforcement of the laws.  Even the 'watchmen' or market-leading 'high courts' would lack any power other than to publish a judgment and recommend others shun you.  Other individuals who disapprove of the ultimate judgment may switch their courts and continue to associate with you.

The biggest risk here is everyone agreeing with the 'market-leading' court, choosing to exclude you from the community, and yet you were 'framed'.    No system is perfect, but at least you are not physically harmed nor have your property involuntarily stolen from you as a result of this judgment.   In theory you also did your due diligence and picked the system you were ultimately judged under.

The non-violent nature is also key because this system could be implemented and 100% legal even today.

Roger that.  I'll check it out.

When r u planning to add "Decentralized Law" text?

I disabled SSL for now.

Yeah, I haven't paid for a cert... and I cannot get web2py to only force SSL for accounts... let me see what I can do.

Starting out there will clearly be two different and incompatible court systems:  the government court and one or more free market courts that would compete for business of the lower courts based upon their fairness and objectiveness.  

The lower courts get to pick one or more courts they will settle disputes with and individuals get to pick one or more 'lower courts' whom they will deal with.

When a dispute arises between people with an public agreement to participate in a court both parties have agreed to have it settled by that lower court.

If the two parties do not have a 'common court' they can agree on, then they each get a judgment from their own courts.  If the courts disagree then the courts have prior agreements about whom they will use to resolve their dispute.   Ultimately, individuals are judged by the most effective courts of their choosing and the most effective courts are the ones who have the most agreements with other courts.   All courts are subject to market pressure for fairness.

My browser doesn't like your security certificate.  I'm interested in reading what you have to say, but not until I can do so without SSL error warnings.