Satoshi Revolution: The Revolution of Hope
Section 5: Saving the World through Anarchism
Chapter 11, Part 6: How Does Blockchain Deliver “Private Justice”?
Author: Wendy McElroy

“The key to an anarchic capitalist judicial system lies in the concept of ‘individual justice’. [Tự đóng vai trò là thẩm phán của chính bạn.] The purpose of the courts is to enable the human settlement of disputes in order to avoid brute force as well as excessive cycles of aggression. Treating court decisions as reasonable is the only way for parties to litigation to avoid individual legal action. “

– Karl T. Fielding, excerpt from “The Role of Individual Justice in Anarchic Capitalism”

Justice is an obstacle to all political systems. It is a particular problem for anarchism because its conception of justice sounds alien to many; Anarchists specifically argue that justice should be a good or service provided through the free market, like insurance. The point of justice also seems contradictory to some; How can a society based solely on voluntary exchange deal with crimes such as theft, which require the confiscation of stolen property and can deter criminals from doing what they want?

Murray Rothbard refuted the latter objection in a remarkable debate on anarchic justice with philosophy professor John Hospers. Rothbard wrote: “I see no reason for anyone to worry about the criminal’s consent to their respective punishment. I think they shouldn’t do anything without that person’s consent other than punish criminals for violating the victim’s “consent,” person, or property. “

The main argument here becomes the question “Can the free market bring justice?”. And the first question that arises when it comes to this topic is often: “What will the fairness of the free market look like?” Nobody knows exactly, people knew decades ago that communication would be like the Internet or transactions like blockchain. (We’ll talk more about this later.)

However, principles based on private justice can and must be clearly defined.

John Locke’s “TINA” theory

The classic liberal philosopher John Locke used the argument “There Is No Alternative” in his book Second Treatise of Government. It is a type of reasoning that rejects anarchism and affirms the state.

In the introductory excerpt of this article, Karl Fielding used the term “individual justice”. The term is based on a political argument by Locke and refers to the idea that a person has the right to be a judge on their own case. For example, everyone has the right to get their property back from a thief as this is an extension of their right to protect people and property.

Locke recognized this right, but rejected his practice. He wrote: “In the state of nature, according to natural law, every person has executive power, I have no doubt, but it would be objected that it would be inappropriate for one to judge a case,” narcissism “makes people part of themselves and make their friends; and on the other hand, that evil, passionate, and vengeful nature will take them too far in punishing others; and therefore nothing follows but confusion and chaos. “

The “state of nature” refers to human existence without “society” in the modern sense of the word. In the natural state, Locke believed that all human beings are equal, with the same natural right to judge themselves. Again, if a property has been stolen, the owner can judge the act as unfair and take corrective action himself; he can reclaim his property, including compensation that he deems appropriate. In short, private justice is a matter of interest.

Locke believed, however, that a private trial was prone to injustice, since even an honest person sees things from his own personal point of view and interests. Even a person with good intentions can be confused about facts, including the identity of the attacker. This means that a world occupied by people who judge themselves will lead to discord, especially if the invaders themselves are upset. For example, the attacker may think that the force used to regain possession is excessive or that the additional compensation is inadequate. Then the attacker will judge his own case and make him a victim; the person can also seek redress or revenge on their own. Or the wrongly accused (non-attacker) person can decide to make amends for the wrongdoing committed to them. This process can easily become an endless loop of violence, as justice is not accepted by either party in this case.

Locke believes that breaking the cycle of “confusion and chaos” would require an “impartial judge” whose judgment would be deemed legitimate by both parties. In crypto terms, the decentralized judiciary must be centralized under a trusted third party. Civil society could not survive without a trusted third party to assess cases and make legal decisions.

The need for legitimacy in the judiciary was a major – even the main reason – of Locke’s support for a limited state. This has been an important argument against anarchism and liberalism for centuries. And the argument “either this or that” is correct in this case. Either freedom or the state, with justice as the end result between the two. (One form of this debate takes place in the crypto community; either anarchism or the state, with recourse against theft and fraud being the crux of the matter.) In other words, when individuals fail to bring justice, the state becomes necessary, for them too who see the state as a necessary crime and try to contain it with checks and balance sheets.

What does this have to do with blockchain? With blockchain, the focus of justice is instantly reversed; Control would be withdrawn from the state and returned to the individual without bloodshed, votes or revolution. But if Locke is right that the judiciary needs a trusted third party, then the state monopoly of justice is likely to re-establish itself. What can transparent ledgers do to prevent this from happening?

Defining justice is also a way of answering the question. Justice is closely related to police officers, lawyers, courts and prisons. Such public servants are not fair; they are the ones who intervene when justice is broken; they are there to protect the state, not the individual or peace. However, the state dominates the region so much that such administrative jurisdiction is the first definition that comes to mind.

Moral justice applies to acts of civil and private life. The Aristotelian definition follows common sense: people should get what they deserve from others. Some of this is like the open market, where two people make a direct exchange for the agreed value and then leave. That a woman goes shopping, buys a tomato and comes home does justice. It seems like she’s just enjoying her everyday life, because that’s true too. In normal life, the free market often gives people what they deserve, even if it is not what they want.

The really tough question here is what to do when the justice of ordinary life is broken – a situation known as violence. Eliminating the most common form of violence – the state – would also eliminate most injustices. But a society without a state will experience violence only against people or property.

Two approaches to reducing private violence and its damage are prevention and punishment. Prevention is currently the best approach to a free society. It preserves people and property; it avoids the tough process of correcting an injustice; it greatly reduces the need for procedures or institutions to correct such injustices; it does not create an entry point for the state.

Blockchain not only promotes freedom, but also prevents theft by the state and individuals. Peer-to-peer transfers avoid the involvement of trusted third parties who are too involved in theft; Private wallets avoid the need to trust banks, stock exchanges or other third parties. Transparency of the blockchain so that you can see where parts of the cryptocurrency are going. The irreversible and time-stamping money transfer is included specifically for theft prevention. The anonymity possible with little effort also offers protection.

The protection of crypto and blockchain breaks down most dramatically when trusted third parties are brought back into the equation. Many of the problems that blockchain fixed stem from the involvement of a trusted third party. For example, the biggest theft happened in exchange. With unethical or centralized exchanges like …