Confusion about Free Speech - polycentric

Jim Choate ravage at EINSTEIN.ssz.com
Wed Feb 28 05:36:13 PST 2001



On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:

> Polycentric law is older than the law itself. The Muslims and the Christians
> used to trade using the Maghribi traders. They ran a _private legal system_.
> Later, we saw the rise of the Law Merchant standards. If you broke the
> rules, you were out. It runs on reputation capital. Polycentric law is the
> order of the society. Most of the cypherpunk memes here are going to require
> the equivalent of the Maghribi traders.

Is it? Muslims and Christian traders really didn't use 'private law' in
the way we would use it today. Why? Because we are not primarily ruled by
our religous beliefs. The reason these examples aren't good ones is they
aren't what makes polycratic law polycratic, a bunch of independent EQUAL
authorities, they weren't. They all shared a common base infrastructure.

This is the same sort of near-miss as the Icelandic anarchist claims that
raise their heads once upon a while around here.

This raises the primary problem with polycratic law, and one which is
clearly evident in the Third Reich, they aren't economic. They each end up
fighting for the same scraps and that takes resources better spend for the
good of society. It's like watching a pack of hungry dogs fight over the
same scraps.

> Code and other laws of cyberspace (Lessig, et. al.) are pointing out that
> the Net has developed a society where one person can be subject to many
> legal systems. A legal system is not just a state-sanctioned court. Now,
> these two legal systems are competing. The static legal system is trying
> avidly to address and stamp out it's new competitor. But there will always
> be a place for the Maghribi (although the traditional role of a lawyer is
> now very much in question) where the law does not go, or where it is
> inefficient.

Actually Lessig is wrong for very one important reason, Open Source
software. The real question is whether the people out there will recognize
it in time.

People are building a technical and physical infra-structure that isn't
dependent upon the 'official' technical standards. We are reaching a level
of societal complexity where individuals are now abandoning centralized 
specialization because they have the tools to do many jobs themselves.

Law can't be efficient, not in its job description. Law isn't primarily an
economic factor (which must be crushing to those cryto-anarchist and
free-market mavens that live for the almight God dollar). Law is supposed
to be JUST. That it provides equal protection under the law is sufficient.

Besides the 'effeciency' of a legal system is irrelevent since it isn't
auto-catalytic (ie courts don't make law). The efficiency, if there is any
such beast to be had, is in the legislature. Efficiency is not making bad
laws in the first place. There is NOTHING in polycratic law that promises
to resolve this issue in any manner.

> Coming from a traditionalist legal culture, I'm probably the worst person to
> talk about it. My understanding is that this is an old cypherpunk topic.

Yes, but one which even the old hats haven't resolved. Though some of them
will squeel mightily about how 'resolved' it is, references to the
archives and such.

People have spent their whole lives educating and being educated about
centralized homogenous government. What's interesting, at least in this
country, is we're actually going backward, lowering the bar. The
Declaration of Independence guarantees individual liberty, and we hand it
over to a bunch of fat old political farts on a court with way too much
authority. An example is the discussion over speech the last couple of
days, what amazes me is these people say it's 'my point' when in fact it's
the fundamental under-pinning of their very country. AND THEY DON'T EVEN
KNOW IT.

In a very real sense the American democratic experiment has failed. It's
first death blow was Lincolns inaugural address and the second was the
creation of 'artificial people' (ie corporations) for economic reasons in
1870. The first decision killed the Declaration of Independence and the
second moved 'rights' from the venue of people to the venue and control of
government (in direct contravention to the Constitution, for those who
want to argue the opposite please explain where 'business' or 'economic
concern' is in the 9th Amendment).

    ____________________________________________________________________

           Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a
           smaller group must first understand it.

                                           "Stranger Suns"
                                           George Zebrowski

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list