How to create a meaningful Blockchain Constitution
If you Google “Blockchain Constitution” you will discover my prior post on “Why every Blockchain needs a Constitution” as the number 2 hit. Today I would like to expand upon why and how one would go about creating an meaningful, enforceable constitution.
As those who have followed me over the years know, it is my continuing mission to discover free market solutions for securing life, liberty, and property. I started this mission because I believe it is possible to create a well ordered society without resorting to violence. When people think of anarchy, anarcho capitalism, libertarianism, and voluntarism they immediately think of all the problems that would exist without government. What do you call a system of governance that is purely voluntary and absent of violence? Can any such system have teeth?
What is Governance?
Governance is the process by which decisions are made by a group of people. At its heart is the concept of dispute resolution. Any time two or more people are involved in making a decision disputes will arise. A solid governance system is a process for dispute resolution over which there is prior agreement and therefore no dispute. If people can agree on the process, then they can usually live with the outcome.
What should be Governed?
The biggest challenge for any group of people is the allocation of Rights: who can do what and when. The most basic Right is property rights and from that all other Rights can be derived. Our first property claim is our body and from that claim our right to control how it is used.
Contracts are a process by which people agree to grant and exchange Rights under certain circumstances.
A free and prosperous society is derived from efficient governance over property right disputes and therefore all contract disputes. This means that a system of governance ultimately must govern all of our mutual Rights. If we can agree on an efficient and honest, logically consistent, process for determining who owns what and when, then we can have a peaceful and prosperous society.
How should Rights be Governed?
Ambiguity over rights is the source of most disputes. Any time things are ambiguous, or subject for interpretation, there is an opportunity for dispute. It could be said that an ounce of dispute prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we want to minimize ambiguity then we need to formalize contracts in computer code and have them evaluated in a transparent and reproducible manner. In other words, smart contracts can be considered a means to reduce ambiguity in contracts and the dispute resolution process.
Ideally everything could be resolved by perfectly executing computer code, but that would require the code to have perfect knowledge, a sense of equity, and the ability to discern between the explicit instructions we gave it and the intent of the instructions we gave which may not be the same thing.
For this reason it is necessary for us to have humans involved in governance to cover the situations where code fails or is unable to resolve disputes.
Property Rights are a Treaty
It is commonly held that our rights are derived by virtue of being human; however, not all humans agree with that premise. Many people believe in the law of the jungle, that might makes right. Rights are a concept that we grant to others so that others will grant them to us in return. It is a peace treaty that frees us from the need to defend ourselves against those who sign it and enables everyone to devote more time and resources toward more productive activities.
Under this view of property rights, you only have rights by virtue of your explicit consent with two or more people who grant those rights to you. Without such an agreement we revert to the law of the jungle. No one claims a bear is violating their “rights”. Nature knows no rights; we only imagine them to exist. The bear never agreed not to maul you, and likewise unless other people agree not to maul you they haven’t violated your rights by mauling you. Afterall, did you ever promise not to maul them? What consideration did you give in exchange for the rights you imagine to have? Does the other party you expect to respect your rights consider the terms fair?
This philosophical approach may appear repugnant to those who are convinced that they are owed certain rights by virtue of being human. This is a view I once held, but now see as wishful thinking of an individual wanting to impose terms of a peace treaty on everyone else. Instead what this individual should be doing is organizing his own community among people that will grant rights to each other with an eye toward mutual defense against aggressors.
We demand the government to recognize our rights and we all protest when we feel the government is violating its constitution. The fact is that governments are strong, powerful groups of people which represent a force no individual can defend against which makes us wish we could prove they are in the wrong and we are the victim. Sadly, they force us to sign their contracts under threats of imprisonment or death if we refuse. Then they claim we consented despite the obvious duress.
It is not possible to enter a contract while under threat of overpowering violence. Therefore, there is no contract between us and our so-called government. Therefore there are no more rights between us and our government than between us and a bear. In fact, the government doesn’t actually exist! It is a figment of our collective imagination and any violation of our perceived rights can only be by individuals with whom we have not signed any contract.
A Constitution is a multi-party Contract
Any two people can create a contract where they agree to recognize each other’s rights and agree to allow a 3rd party to resolve any dispute. The most common way this is done is via an arbitration clause in a contract. The ruling of binding Arbitration is generally enforceable in all countries around the world by virtue of numerous arbitration treaties.
There are many reasons to agree to Arbitration including:
- Faster
- Cheaper
- Privacy
- Choice of Law
- Fairness
- International Disputes
- Controlling Jurisdiction
- Knowledge of Judge
Without an arbitration agreement between two parties, a dispute can be brought in any number of countries with any number of different applicable laws, non of which the parties consented to. The parties can shop jurisdictions for those most favorable to them and least favorable to the opposing party. Governments around the world can pass new laws and set precedents that might invalidate the intent of the parties contract.
If we want to create a free society with an honest dispute resolution and property right allocation, then we must take control of Jurisdiction and Choice of Law. Fortunately, this is easy to do with an internationally recognized Arbitration clause and dispute resolution forum that employ the Maxims of equity.
Counterparts
You may have seen clauses like the following in various contracts you have signed:
This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall constitute a duplicate original, but all counterparts together shall constitute a single agreement.
What this is saying is that two different people can sign two different copies of the same contract and it has the effect as if both signed the same contract. This language is incredibly common even though it is almost unnecessary as most courts will recognize signed Counterparts as one document even without such a clause.
Therefore, two parties who both sign a separate copy of Constitution can be considered to have signed the same contract where the Constitution is a contract.
Constitution as a Contract
A constitution can be viewed as a contract and enforced as such around the world. This contract can establish choice of law, choice of arbitration forum, and allocate any other lawful rights among the parties. In order to be viewed as a valid contract it must have several elements:
- Offer
- Acceptance
- Consideration
- Mutuality
- Competency / Capacity
- Ideally a Written Instrument
The Offer
The constitution is an open offer to anyone willing to accept it. In this offer the offeree is agreeing to participate in dispute resolution and to take reasonable, non-violent, actions to recognize and restore the property rights of another using a mutually agreed upon process (e.g. smart contracts). The person accepting this offer is granted validation of their property right and the benefits of an efficient process for managing and transferring their rights.
Acceptance
There are many ways to demonstrate acceptance, including: digital signature, physical signature, verbal agreement, depositing a check, or other actions that demonstrate your voluntary choice to partake in the benefits of the agreement. Use of a blockchain and signing a transaction that incorporates the hash of the contract is a valid proof of acceptance.
Consideration
A constitution that offers both parties an equal trade of rights and obligations comes at equal expense and benefits to both parties. These benefits have material value to the parties and come at material expense.
Mutuality
Nothing could be more mutual than a Constitution that imposes equal rights, benefits, and obligations on all parties.
Competency / Capacity
This particular loophole may allow some individuals to escape the enforcement of the contract, but is of little concern to the vast majority of people.
Written Instrument
A public Constitution identified by cryptographic hash and signed by digital signatures is about as solid and verifiable, indisputable, written instrument as one could hope to come across.
Enforcing the Contract
Ok, so we have identified that a constitution can be drafted as a simple multi-party contract that all parties executed in counterpart by virtue of using a particular blockchain. How does one go about enforcing the terms when you may not know anything about the other party other than their blockchain account name.
Serving Notice of Dispute
The first and most important aspect of bringing a suit against someone is knowing how to properly serve them. This is something that must be specified in the contract and recognized by the arbitration forum. Fortunately, a blockchain is a public record where notices can be delivered to any and all parties to the constitution. Afterall, unless you have an account it is unlikely you signed the constitution / contract.
If you publish notice of your dispute to the blockchain and the other party refuses to participate in the arbitration process, then he or she will lose by default and a ruling can be made against the account. To prevent abuse the loser has to cover the legal costs and time of the winner’s fair market rates.
Know your Customer
Generally speaking, if you are doing business with someone and there is some probability of dispute then you should likely gather information from them that will help you prove they have signed the constitution and submit an arbitration ruling in your local courts for enforcement. This can happen in many ways, but the simple process of asking them to send a signed payment request or a purchase order via the blockchain is enough to tie their account to the address you are shipping the good or service to.
Pseudo Anonymous Dispute Resolution
May services, such as VPNs, allow customers to pay via Bitcoin and take no other identifying information. If the user of the VPN violates the Terms of Service then the VPN operator may have claims for damages, but no ability to know how to bring them to justice.
A blockchain with Constitution and built in method for delivering notice of request for Arbitration can enable the VPN service provider to get a ruling against a Pseudo Anonymous account. The account owner will either have to identify themselves or defend themselves Pseudo Anonymously or they may lose the dispute by default.
Once a ruling is entered the entire community will be aware of the judgment and if the real identity of the account owner is ever found then it will be binding on them. In all likelihood the rulings would even be enforced by governments around the world.
The ideal situation in these cases is for accounts to be bonded and insured. In this way individual identity can be kept private from everyone while still enabling certain guarantees of payment in a dispute.
Block Producers can Expel Accounts in Bad Standing
All blockchains have a group of block producers with the power to collectively block any account they desire. Bitcoin miners use fees as the basis for blocking certain transactions. Steem uses rate limiting to do the same. It is also possible for Block Producers to block transactions from accounts until the individual behind the account complies with a public ruling against them.
The benefit of having 21+ elected block producers is that it requires sustained unanimous consent to execute such a punitive measure. The reality is that the elected producers can and should set up a smart contract based process to reach consensus on when to utilize this power to enforce a ruling.
Businesses can Shun Accounts
Just like producers can block transactions, businesses can quickly review the record of any account to determine whether it is in good standing. An account in bad standing can be denied service based upon the principle of freedom of association. The goal of a governance system is to make it easier to get verified background checks.
How is this less corrupt than what we have today?
Those of us who are sensitive to abuse of power and corruption of individuals within a system may be feeling sad right now. The promise of rule by benevolent artificially intelligent blockchain overlords just seems so ideal after centuries of government corruption.
What good does it do us to construct a blockchain with a constitution that enables users to bring other users to arbitration in a court governed by corruptible people? Won’t this result in arbitrary rulings and ultimately arbitrary law?
Here are the key differences:
- All parties explicitly consent without threat of violence
- All parties explicitly agree to refrain from aggression and aim for logical consistency
- A much larger part of your rights is governed by logically consistent code
- Enforcement is limited to non-violent actions on a public ledger
- Precedent (aka the fallacy of appeal to authority) can be explicitly excluded from being valid basis for an arbitration ruling, all decisions should be independently derived from facts and reason. This prevents one bad / corrupt decision from compounding over time and hopefully prevents legislation by judges.
All of that stated, the single biggest things that drive corruption out and integrity up is free market competition, transparency, and immediate public referendum.
No system is perfect when it must be designed and operated by humans with competing value systems and agendas. Hopefully we can find new ways to work together that raise the bar enough to make a difference in the quality of our lives and those of our children.
You're mixing up a government and a state here.
Government is what happens any time two or more people get together and agree to abide by a set of rules. As long as they agree, then there is no need for involvement of a third party.
A state is a monopoly on violence and is used to enforce the rules of the government. This works fine so long as the people in power are benevolent. But regimes changes and people are panicky, fickle creatures who sell their freedom all too cheaply.
A constitution is only worth the desire of men to enforce it as sacred and inalienable. If you're starting down this path thinking that "rights" are somehow granted, you're sorely mistaken. They are not "granted" by laws, they are "enumerated" by them.
Rights, by definition exist outside of any law. They are yours because you exist. It is up to you to enforce and defend your rights. When you are able to do this, then you exist as sovereign over your domain and your domain stretches as far as you are able to enforce your rights.
This is why governments are considered sovereign. They are the collective will of the people, so long as the people assert their own rights individually within the government by exercising all their rights at all times and not allowing the collective will of others to deprive them of said rights.
Because if you allow someone else to deprive you of your rights, then you are not sovereign are you?
Does your right to medical care from me exist outside a contract between you and I? If we have a contract and you have paid, do you now have a right to that care?
I think we can see that through contracts rights can be created. You are merely debating whether or not rights exist prior to a contract. I argue the point is moot, people should enter a contract that grants the rights they think they are owed to everyone is who is willing to recognize those rights. Now whether you have rights by virtue of being a live or by contract you are covered.
Rights exist because we exist. But it is the power to assert and manage those rights that determines who is sovereign over their affairs and who is a supplicant.
What I said about a state being a monopoly on violence and a government being the thing that exists when two or more people will it to be, defines the state as sovereign in this context. It will remain sovereign so long as individuals lend it their power and pay it fealty. When that ceases, then the state loses it's mandate, ceases being powerful and is no longer a monopoly on violence as the people reclaim and reassert their rights.
At a more basic level, I have the right to live, so do you. You are not a provider of medical care. Were you one, then yes my right to continue to live is going to be more important to me and mine, than your right to do with your time as you please is to you and yours.
If I can assert that right either through plea or force, then my right is recognized by you. But that doesn't mean it didn't exist prior, just that you were failing to recognize it.
The underlaying problem here is that you have paid fealty to a state which says that you are not sovereign over your financial affairs. The state has taken your money and used it to compensate medical providers to provide medical care for those who are in need.
The state does this because yes, they do have this right and it is even enumerated in some of our most basic principle founding documents. "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and have the rights to life, liberty..."
This is a thing you disagree with, but you are not powerful enough to walk away from the society that gave you this money while still holding onto the money, power and prestige that society gave you by acknowledging your rights.
It sounds like you believe that your right to money you earned , exceeds the right to life of the indigent. Yet you choose to continue in a society that disagrees with you on this point. You have to ask yourself why you would do that, rather than asserting your rights and becoming active at changing the balance of power back to the side of the powerful from the side of the weak?
Contracts can NEVER create a RIGHT. They can enumerate the terms of agreement. Some of those terms are requirements that each side acknowledge the rights of the other.
Contracts are a reference to go off from when there is a disagreement. What you're calling a right, is just a term of agreement and it only applies so long as the parties agree to those terms.
You are correct that when parties disagree, they need an arbiter. Your system works so long as all parties agree to the terms of either the contract, or the implicit social contract which is created by participating in the society.
But rights do exist outside of that construct. It mostly matters who has the strength and determination to ensure those rights are respected.
I'm going to ask you to consider that all rights must be mutual and both parties must have the ability to grant the other party said right. If you are not a doctor then you do not have the ability to grant a mutual right of medical care.
Like I pointed out in the right to food debate: can two people who have no food enter a contract that grants each other the right to food? This this right to food exist by virtue of them being human? Do they have this right in the desert?
Would you sign a contract that grants me a right to food whether or not I provide you food or compensation? Would you open that contract up to anyone who wanted to sign it with you?
See the contradiction there, "Rights" are only yours if you can "Enforce" them... this is a law of the jungle.
A contract is a means of enforcing your rights. You recognize that your fellow man also wants the same thing you want and thus you agree where the boundary is. Without this agreement you are left to fight to establish your rights.
Why?
In what way was that not clear? Sorry I'm fighting a massive toothache, it's slowing me down.
I was asking for a why, not a restatement of assumptions.
Good luck with the toothache, hope it's fixable.
Very compelling. So we reach a compromise which is considerably more resilient because language and the ability to write code can never be perfect.
Wow. Thank you so much for your contributions, Dan. This is all SO important. This is truly giving power back to the people and relinquishing it from the hands of corrupt mega-governments globally. This is absolutely beautiful. The future is bright. Keep up the amazing work, you're a truly important player on the world's stage. It's such a cool feeling being able to play a part in all of this as well. Keep on fighting the good fight! Can't wait to learn more about EOS! Hopefully I land one of the free tickets for Consensus 2017!!!
I put in a good word for you.
You are the sweetest of sweetie pies. Thank you!
Put in a good word, you did! Got confirmation today that me @robrigo and I both got tickets! Amazing, thank you so much. Beyond excited and thankful to be surrounded by so many amazing minds.
Beautiful put @matt-a! I think a lot of us share your feelings and would have love to put it how you've put it. At least I do.
Thanks! Feel free to use my expression, if you share that sentiment, you share it, right? I'm not copyrighting anything haha. Also, keep up the solid blog!
In answer to your question: "What would you like to see in a constitution?" Equality.
By what definition of Equality?
What properties should be equal? What things may be different?
I guess my primary concern would be the equality of people, humans. As far as properties being equal I think this would refer to rights of access to basic needs, food, water, shelter the freedom to make decisions about how one lives their life. Even more so I consider access to the internet a basic human right so that would need to be there as well, although to some extent it is implied it must also be stated.
And what if there is not enough food to feed everyone? Say a global disaster results in enough food for only 50% of the people to eat enough to barely live?
Rights can only be sourced from what people have to give. If you grant me the right to food and I grant you the right to food, but neither of us have food then that is fraud. It would be like me selling you a bridge in Brookland.
point taken.
Let me state it another way, would you sign a contract where you were on the hook to personally provide everyone else in the world with food? Because that is exactly what signing such a contract would do to you.
Even if they were obligated to provide you food as well, it wouldn't matter because if you both had food then the clause is pointless.
Interesting, in this constitution then do we need to answer the question of who does produce the food?
No, we just need to recognize the process by which ownership of food is determined and the process by which title to food may be transferred.
Yes.
Hmm. Interesting. My guess is I'll need to ponder on this.
Well production of food is technically limited to only those who own land. Or those who can rent land to produce food, But I do certainly recognise your point interms of signing a constitution that guarantees access to food.
For governance in general, I would start by learning about existing techniques for human self-organization, such as holacracy or sociocracy. In particular for developing a constitution, I would especially study the holacracy constitution on github.
Of course, none of those are tailored for the block chain, but many of the concepts will probably be the same.
I'll make sure to take a look at these. Thank you @remlaps!
You're welcome. FYI, I still have much to learn, but I posted a couple times, scratching the surface for both holacracy and sociocracy, a while back: 7 Videos about Holacracy: A Social Technology for Human Self-Organization, and [Article Review]Sociocracy: An Organization Model for Large-Scale Agile Development.
I'll take a look at them too.
interesting!!! I will also follow you.
Does EOS stand of End of State?
lol good one! I like it.
Sounds to me like Entry Of Steemit😎
No one may have the right to write (such) a constitution. Don't think I have the energy to think out a proper response. However I love the discussion of the great minds that meet here.
Namaste
Very interesting read! Thank you for posting your views.
Although I like to believe in a blockchain constitution, I have some doubts if it indeed will solve issues we are facing now.
Isn't this more or less the same as some of our basic laws, such as: you are not allowed to kill someone, or do physical harm? While in no country in the world it is allowed to harm or kill someone, some of us still do this. Don't you think this is an Utopian view that can never be reality?
Transparency: Don't you think that this requires real life identity mapping to account holders on the blockchain holding the constitution? Ie, anonymity shall not be the bases of such blockchain constitution?
Immediate public referendum: Although I like to believe in individuals being able to inform themselves sufficiently, analyse the information responsibly, derive conclusions, and vote based on the conclusions; the reality shows many individuals vote what they are told to vote; Whatever their friends, neighbours, loudest politicians or whoever the individual is following, is telling over and over again.
Question
What is you view on eg two neigbours both signed up to a different blockchain constitution: 1 blockchain constitution forbids playing of load music after 10PM, and the other blockchain constitution allows playing load music after 10PM? One blockchain allows to carry a weapon and is allowed to shoot someone when entering without permission your backyard, while the other blockchain determines that your backyard is open to anybody?
A contract is only binding on those who sign. It can grant you nothing the other party doesn't already have.
No contact will allow you to escape criminal jurisdictions of government, but it may give you standing in a new forum.
I understand the principles indeed. But the fact remains that individuals can decide not to sign any contract. In a world without centralised governments; These do have all the rights one can possible have; These individuals can so anything they please since they have no contract with anybody else. Therefore I actually think it is impossible to live with such an amount of people on our planet without some centralised or semi-centralised 'governments' (I quote governments, since these maybe different to what we have implemented today).
Wouldn't it be better to have a competition of constitutions? People could choose which one to sign and un-sign - for example in case of flaws identified in the constitution. This would enable natural selection and evolution of constitutions.
Yes, people have choices... just like there are 100 blockchains :)
A single blockchain can even support amending the constitution.
I meant multiple constitutions inside a single blockchain. Like there are multiple open source licences.. but only a few of them are used the most.