Since these “laws” are written in a language (code) that most people don’t know will they only be…
Pete Smith
1

The idea is that current laws are written in a code only understandable by some professionals : lawyers.

Problem 1 : that code is not “logical”. It is heavily subject to interpretation. Studying law is basically studying the history of interpretations and giving you the tool to build your own interpretation when you need it.

This is, obviously, unfair. But it might be seen as a feature. Sometimes, two similar offenses have two different root causes and we may want to consider them differently. (it is a moral choice)

Problem 2 : the world changes and the laws should change accordingly. But changing the law is extremely complex and indirect. Through elections, you elect some random people and then ask them to propose some tiny changes to the code of the law and have that change validated by other elected people.

This is, obviously, completely inefficient and full of drama. Some laws should not even be discussed because they are a simple correction of an existing mistake but are seen as symbolic. Example : allowing gay to marry. If you don’t want to marry a gay, you are obviously not concerned by the law. So the law will not change anything in your life. But this kind of laws become a symbolic trophy to create conflict between two worldviews.

The proposed solution is to create a new code that would not be subject to interpretation : programmation code. Everyone can learn it, everyone can read it or, at least, be helped to read it.

In case of doubt, simply run the code in a computer to see the result.

That solves problem 1.

The problem 2 is solved by the concept of the blockchain. As soon as a law seems outdated, people stop to follow it. The choose to follow some other laws. Thus, people are voting directly for their own laws.

Now, this raises several questions :

  1. Can we really translate the complexity of our law system in a binary code ? I think so but it might be challenged.
  2. Do we really want a law system that cannot be subject to interpretation? I’m not sure about this one.
  3. Is the blockchain a good way to replace our “democratic system”? I’m convinced that yes, it is.
  4. Is Ethereum the good implementation? I think not. The ETH community broke its own rules after the DOA by choosing to not follow the code, to revert something where someone simply followed the code. The DOA hack is, thus, perfectly legal as it did what the code allowed to do. ETC, in that regard, may be a good bet.
Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Ploum’s story.