The Internet Legal System
May 02, 2023
The Internet Legal System
Links:
One of the key elements at Nation3DAO, which has led me to extensive reflections on the endless possibilities it could unlock, is what we called The Internet Legal System.
The concept is simple yet profound: the foundational element that defines a nation-state is what brings its people together. How did The Internet changed this way of having social values without physical presence? This group of people could then now be anyone with an internet connection. There could be also a social contract that enables these individuals to interact with each other, removing the necessity for mutual trust in order to establish a way of living and build an economy upon this basis.
On one side, questions such as, could the next step in the evolution of nations be something like a global nation? Maybe a new layer on top of actual nations and social structures? Could Bitcoin, as an international asset, define a new base layer for a new social international legal layer?
If we were to reimagine, from the ground up, an acting model that would potentially allow anyone to engage by default, protected by a selected set of rules worldwide, how would that work? Could these sets of rules be defined on each 'social network'? Are we transitioning into the democratization and programmability of the legal layer in the same way it happened with news, now money? How would that manifest? Could this possibility lay the foundation for a social layer atop existing states?
For example: Deploy this specific legal template layer for this interaction. The timespan: 2 years; capital requirements: 1 million; parties allowed to participate in the legal layer: these wallets with these identities on top.
Somehow, that was the goal.
Are we, in some way, starting to build the house from the ceiling? Or, in this case, does having the ceiling already in place permit the construction of the rest of the elements, because the weather is so harsh that there is no other way?
The essence is that legality is inherently social, as it is an abstraction invented by humans to enable communal living under a system of rules. This system is designed to prevent mutual destruction by establishing social punishments through economic structures, such as bank freezes, embargoes, and lockouts. Moreover, when significantly breached, it resorts to physical deprivation methods like jail, the death penalty, and house arrest. Consequently, the diversity of legal layers mirrors the variety of societal types around the world.
The first questions arise:
- How did we, as humans, succeed in creating these models, and what can we learn from the past to build such a layer?
- How have people accepted a ruling model that was imposed by someone?
- How does a ruling model evolve to yield new outcomes?
- If a legal layer were to be established atop all current societies, what would it entail?
I've realized that building a legal model fundamentally has more to do with societies than with law per se. The essence is that these models have been created over thousands of years of collective living, experimenting, and failing. Generations of people have tested dogmas and the applicability of beliefs to understand what social justice means in each ruling part of the physical world where people reside.
One aspect in which there is no man's land is the absence of an absolute truth, but rather a subjective vision of what is best for one's considerations. This involves high-level leadership structures and deep, long-term human decision-making in curating highly expressive texts. These texts aim to capture every detail of the comprehensive language that governs the specific part of the applicability of the rule of law.
Language, key. Culture, key. Leadership, key.
It is politics at the end of the day. It is influence. It is social movements. It is capital
Let's jump into the actual case.
The point of the The Internet Legal System is then to create a legal model sovereign on its own in which you as an individual could engage into a disputable transaction in which you explicitly decide to expose a part of your sovereign digital funds into what both parties pre-consider correct in case the agreement is breached.
The point is that you expose first the funds or any token logic when you engage in the agreement, think about a limited liability company creating a business in which as a company only expose that limited liability, what you can lose, is what is specifically exposed to that agreement, if the agreement between the parties goes wrong only the expose is opt in to be judged by the court.
It is an on-chain limited liability agreement between parties.
The next step is to determine who decides what is right and wrong when a dispute arises. This is the key problem in the model, where only humans, selected by a specific segment of society that holds authority, are qualified and chosen to make decisions.
In the near future, we might see the advent of AI judge courts trusted to resolve minor, straightforward cases. However, many human problems require pragmatic validation by a deterministic system that holds the truth. Therefore, in legal aspects, truth is always relative and depends on the social rules applicable to the person, whether legal or natural, being judged. Ultimately, the truth is decided by a group of people or an individual assigned to interpret the validity of these rules and apply them to the social law relevant to the dispute. This model's complexity is as utopian as it is difficult to imagine.
On the positive side, this process has led to several innovative developments. These include eliminating the need for physical presence in resolving disputes under a specific rule of law and enabling secure legal agreements for global business engagement.
The creation of global courts allows agreement creators to choose the court under whose jurisdiction their agreements will be judged.
This opens a wide range of applications, enabling third-party validation of digital assets, which was previously impossible.
In conclusion, the concept of an Internet Legal System represents a paradigm shift in our understanding and application of law and society. It proposes a revolutionary model where legal frameworks can transcend physical borders, leveraging the digital realm to create a more accessible, transparent, and flexible legal environment. This system could potentially democratize legal processes, making them more inclusive and adaptable to the evolving needs of a globalized world.
However, as we venture into this new territory, it's imperative to approach with caution and foresight. The integration of technology into legal frameworks brings its own set of challenges and ethical considerations. The balance between innovation and the preservation of fundamental legal principles such as fairness, justice, and equality must be carefully maintained.
The potential of something like this to redefine our social contracts, reshape our economic interactions, and reinvent our legal landscapes is immense. It’s a journey towards a future where legal systems are not only defined by geographical boundaries but by the shared values and mutual agreements of interconnected global citizens. As we navigate this uncharted path, our collective efforts in fine-tuning, regulating, and responsibly implementing these systems will determine their success in serving humanity's best interests.
