Satoshi Revolution: The Revolution of Hope
Section 5: Saving the World through Anarchism
Chapter 11, Part 5: Crypto as Exclusive Justice and Solution to Data Breach
Author: Wendy McElroy

“At the heart of liberalism is the principle of self-ownership, and these self-owners have the ability to appropriate scarce resources by granting land to migrants – a range of the first type of operation to be used or adapted. Obviously, if an individual is a “homesteader” (someone who lives on state land), he must own his or her body; Own property is not acquired by the grantor, but is instead required for every act or defense of the grant. “

– Stephan Kinsella

Owners are the basis of market economy justice. There are three ways to answer the question “Who does it belong to?”: You own yourself, that is autonomy; someone else owns you, that’s slavery; or you are uncollected cargo, like forgotten baggage. Anarchism is the belief that everyone owns their own body and property and has the right to use both peacefully.

But what if other people prefer aggression? Anarchist free market struggle with a private way to create justice; that is, how can a peaceful society prevent or overcome violent conflict between individuals? For many people, market-based solutions sound hypothetical because they are often forced to act in this area. The state refuses to allow parallel rival courts; The only thing the state allows competing systems is for religious bodies to exercise legal power over the consenting members.

Crypto-anarchism is changing the way things work. Just as cryptocurrencies and blockchain revolutionized economic exchanges, they have the potential to do the same for other interactions such as the judiciary. A breath of fresh air blows through old political theories and problems; The experience and understanding of past anarchism need not be blown away. These blueprints of justice can be preserved and compared to solutions implemented by crypto-anarchism. Let the best anarchism win. Let the best aspects of this anarchism melt together. Solutions should develop in parallel on the free market so that the individual can choose.

First, the specific principles of justice in crypto-anarchism

The easiest way to understand justice is to give people what they deserve. This idea goes back to the time of Aristotle. The real difficulty begins with finding it WHO worthy What and Why.

—Michael Sandel, American political philosopher

The answer to the “who” of justice is that each individual is deprived of what is rightfully his or her rightful. This definition excludes “victimless crime” and crimes against the state. Only individuals can be victims of denial of their property. The area of ​​law is reduced to contractual disputes and torture, that is, the act of causing harm to someone else.

The answer to the “what” of justice is at its core the specific use of the body or other property that has been wrongly taken. With crypto, denial almost always involves property that has been taken away through direct violence, threats, or fraud. Justice consists in restoring the status quo to the victim in the form of the return of stolen property or the like, as well as adequate compensation for the associated losses such as time, suffering, inconvenience and the duration of the disapproval. The attacker may or may not be punished by broader social sanctions. For example, the bad behavior of criminals can be published in databases that pay valid information and fees for using their services.

The answer to the “why”: Peaceful exchange cultivates the individual and creates a free society. On the contrary, aggression or violence will lead the individual back to the Hobbesian state of nature, a war in which everyone is against everyone. It’s barbarism, not society. The state’s institutionalized use of force to contain it is slavery, not freedom.

So you have justice

“Getting justice” is the missing piece.

In general, self-defense is the path to justice. Self-defense decentralizes the degraded “justice” of the individual. This is what gun ownership offers: a peer-to-peer and decentralized way for individuals to defend themselves.

Self-defense is divided into three categories or phases: prevention, direct action, and remedial action. (Prevention is discussed in Chapter 9, Section 6). There is a key difference between direct self-defense and measures to remedy an invasion. “Live self-defense” takes place in real time when a person is confronted with violence, such as a break-in; the use of existing self-defense forces is clearly appropriate. But the cure doesn’t come until later, when the offensive is a conspiracy.

Prevention and direct self-defense are not a big challenge for anarchism. Both can be resolved through individual measures or through a service provider hired or dismissed at will. For most people, it is the time to overcome the situation in which anarchism is unsettled. There they give up their right of self-defense to a centralized monopoly of a trustworthy third party who cannot be fired: again the state.

In his article “Why Elites Prefer Centralized Legal Systems”, historian Chris Calton states that the motivation to centralize legal authority is purely political. An important service under the control of those in power has imposed an increasingly complex legal system on the entire population in the name of consequence. In persistent filth, “justice” has been defined as institutionalized violence by the police, courts, and prison systems. This situation is analogous to the assumption that the vital service of trade requires a monopoly of the central bank and the money issued by the state.

Calton continued, “But in the early nineteenth century, consistency in the legal system was less valued than flexibility. When the courts have local jurisdiction, the people of a particular community have a personal interest in seeing justice be done according to the characteristics of each individual case. And for those who are unlucky enough to find themselves at the top of the legal hierarchy – illiterate people, poor people, women, children and blacks – this flexibility has even maintained that that follows. “

Most western justice systems are based on common law, which has largely been superseded by civil law. Chapter 8, Part 1 of the Satoshi Revolution – “Crypto: Civil versus Common Law” – explains that “Common Law provides an alternative legal blueprint. Rooted in the British tradition, it was a body of law developed from the ground up. It has nothing to do with Parliament’s presence. It derives from decentralized court decisions that result from actual litigation … “Common law is so named because it benefits ordinary people. And that’s a big step towards decentralization. Training the strength of each individual in their own life is the ultimate goal.

Why a trusted third party?

If self-defense is decentralized, why should people manage their cures for past attacks? Surely they have the right to do so. For example, they can get their stolen cryptocurrency back by accessing a thief’s digital account and hacking back the coins. But there are good reasons to think this is unwise. Victims may be confused about the identity of the criminal, which implements the so-called standard of violent behavior; Recovery can be dangerous or beyond the victim’s ability; the callback may fail; it can also harm innocent third parties and make the legal remedy liable.

The innocent third party problem is the main argument when hiring a third party to remediate aggression. It is often unclear to outsiders and the rest of society who is the victim and who is the aggressor. In direct self-defense, bystanders who witness an attack on a person know who the victim is; if he pulls his gun, the action is clearly self-protecting and not aggressive. When a woman recovers her stolen wallet, no one else will believe she is stealing it; which she reclaims the property. The same does not apply to anyone taking stolen coins from a thief’s account. For third parties, such as B. a theft trust company, recovery is theft.

In the previous examples, the behavior of the victim and attacker is essentially the same. Both could be aimed at aimed weapons; a wallet is torn back and forth. Account is hacked. An outsider would not be able to tell who the attacker was unless they witnessed the violent behavior. This makes individual remedies very risky. Let us…