You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: What could a blockchain Constitution look like?

in #eos4 years ago

Would it be better to just allow this to develop organically. It already comes with bias from deep within the creators themselves. If it succeeds, good!!! if it fails, good!!!

Something new and better will unfold.

The Constitution of the United States of America was one of the greatest experiments of all time. Witness all around you how this treasure is unfolding.

We the people fail miserable at "keeping" it, much less something new.
Allow the free market to write the rules, that will prove much more valuable.


What part of this constitution is not part of the free market?

Exactly, the moment you defend it, is it "free???" It has been well said, "truth" is an epistemological endeavor. I will be the first to admit, i do not know the answer, i am just observing how it trends. Word[s] is/are the most valuable asset we have, the moment you allow a body (few men) to define what the rules are it opens Pandora's box.
After two or more create THE Crypto- Constitution and a few men lay pen to it, ratify and oblige the blockchain as a whole, you have just lite a match to and endless game of amendment[s], gotcha regulation[s], and the pursuit of entities "necessary and reasonable" to "make sure" it is fair. All i wonder, is it worth it??? Just some thoughts on the matter. That's all...

If you defend your property rights, you are no longer free? The truth is self evident in the case of Blockchain. These Constitution ('s) would marry some of the greatest revelations of humanity to an immutable tome.

I must agree that an at-will Constitution must generate organically, however, a simple suite of agreements can constitute a core, which, because people have certain features and needs in common, can be proposed.

Indeed, it is possible to conceive of this blockchain as being built on a core of agreements, which are universal in application, due to the fact that people are universal in form, and that subsequently builds on that core per the variety of people's beliefs and needs.

Thus, you'd have a core suite of agreements which are essentially ubiquitous, and then various amendments which are agreed to by the various signatories, and that signatories to the core who do not agree with do not sign. This would create a suite of governments that would reflect the actual voluntary agreements signatories undertake.

For example, you and I, in addition to the core suite, agree that all houses will be painted green. Bob doesn't agree, so doesn't participate in that agreement, leaving Bob free to paint his house any color he wants. If you or I change our mind, then the minimum of two signatories necessary for an agreement would no longer exist, and the clause would no longer be in effect.

It is conceivable that some parties may desire to cause others to be compelled to involuntary compliance with certain provisions, such as mutual defense, taxation, etc. This is what I see as the essential problem to be solved, as it may be difficult to imagine reconciling such facts as the need for mutual defense with the various means such defense can take, and it may be that there are certain facts that preclude the ability of persons to not voluntarily agree, such as basic human features and needs, like needing to breathe, drink, eat, excrete, etc.

It can be postulated that some persons may not agree that mutual defense is a need, for example, and I believe that such persons should not be compelled, nor availed in the case of their not voluntarily participating, of an agreement to that effect. However, in the current year, no one can fail to breathe and remain a signatory, as dying terminates their participation, so there can be some agreements that are universal, and involuntary.

A caveat is that different people breathe at different rates and volumes, for various reasons, so a set volume of air of given quality per breath isn't something that can be specified in any agreement, except to establish a minimum that is universally inclusive, or a maximum that no one needs to exceed, and even these must be variable, as the population changes, the actual boundaries change too. Quality, too, varies, as do the needs of people regarding it, and the possibility of providing a given quality of air.

So, while it might seem that a simple agreement that everyone has a right to breathe is universal and should be easy to codify as a core agreement, is actually quite a complex matter, and likely to be separated into various agreements as per the individuals needs and desires, in the real world where air quality is largely limited and impossible of arbitrary determination.

Indeed, the right to breathe is not a ludicrous example, as air pollution is a very significant factor affecting people, and that is believed to vary according to other factors, and cause many deaths where it is bad enough. I can see that some people will feel that others must be compelled to perform certain agreements that limit the production of air pollutants, and that others will utterly disagree.

The issue of breathing is a very good example of something that does need to be rationally dealt with in the real world today, and hopefully that treatment can be attained in the envisioned context.

I'd appreciate thoughts on these points. I'll resteem and look forward to watching this effort evolve and unfold.


EDIT: er, I would resteem, but that does not seem possible, as the button does not appear.