David Hume and the Opportunity for Blockchain-based Law

tl;dr: The convergence of political philosophy and technological capability. Where the rights or the individual and the potential of tech meet.

A few weeks ago, I offered up my non-expert opinion as to why the enlightenment era Scottish philosopher, David Hume might have liked Bitcoin.

It was a stab in the semi-dark based on reading the first 40 pages or so of an incredibly scholarly work. Yet, the post resonated and generated some fantastic comments and insights from a few people.

After that, I put the book down for a bit. The other day, I decided I would just read the epilogue and then be done with it for now.

My OCD-ness requires me to move the book from one of the “active” piles to the “passive library” section of my house.

I’m glad I did, because I came across an absolutely excellent summary towards the end.

The Intersection of Commerce and Law

 Thomas Merrill‘s book, Hume and the Politics of Enlightenment brings the saga to a conclusion as follows:

“From here flows Hume’s political philosophy in the narrow sense:

commerce requires law, law requires political authority, political authority requires a common opinion among the people at large.

Above all, commercial republicanism requires a particular character among its citizens. Being unwilling to be slaves, yet also not wishing to be masters, those citizens must “covet” equal laws, that is, recognize and passionately affirm the rule of law as the only possible guarantor for their peculiar dignity”  (page 195)

We’ve explored a bit the connection between property rights and commerce in other posts, including the one about Twitter and Africa. Based on nothing more than personal opinion, I suspect that many Americans and Westerners, in general, take the rule of law and courts as a given.

For a while, they all took political authority as a given as well.

Fracturing Politics and Legal Frameworks

Today, however, it seems that the common discourse and mentality is calling into questions many of these foundational elements of Hume’s political philosophy and our commercial success/opportunities.

It seems that there is not a “common opinion among the people at large” about what type of political authority we should have. Or, if there is, there is no clear consensus about how to even extract.

In the US, some people want to abolish the Electoral College. Some states have signed a pact to apportion their electors in line with the national popular vote, even if their state votes a different direction.

That sounds like the beginning of an uncommon opinion about how to get to a common opinion.

Even more troubling than that, for me, is the rise of “Sanctuary Cities” and the more recent “Sanctuary Counties.“

The sanctuary cities proclaim that they won’t enforce Federal law when it comes to immigration. The sanctuary counties proclaim they won’t enforce any future Federal law that changes gun rights.

What’s the point of a law of the land if you can just pick and choose the ones you want?

This may be the most insidious undermining of the rule of law. Though, I wonder if it began when the Obama administration turned a blind eye to the legalization of marijuana in Colorado?

So, the question left for Hume is: if there’s fraying consensus about how to establish political authority, fraying agreement on who has political authority, and a subjective definition of which laws matter, is it possible to really have growth in commerce?

The Rule of Law as Guarantor of Dignity

It may be a stretch on my part, given how diverse and opinionated the crypto/blockchain world is, but I would suggest the following.

People who “opt-in” to a blockchain world are doing more than exercising a choice of whether they trust centralized technology systems or decentralized technology systems.

They are making a statement (though it’s implied and not explicit for many) that they do in fact “covet equal laws.”

People who choose to participate in open networks secured by crypto assets do “recognize and passionately affirm the rule of law as the only possible guarantor for their peculiar dignity“

That’s the whole point of this crypto movement. It’s something that Satoshi spelled out in the whitepaper, the problem of trust.

What public blockchains enable are the equal application of the law to rich and poor alike. When law is applied by math, justice is really blind.

Agreement on those laws isn’t easy, whether in a blockchain world or a non-blockchain world. While my friend, William Mougayar, argues that most organizations cannot be run on a blockchain, I am not so sure. I agree with him that it’s really messy today and it’s also extremely impractical for everyone to vote on everything.

However, I am (perhaps naively) a bit more optimistic that orgs which use blockchains, crypto, and things like quadratic voting ultimately have a better opportunity to obtain a “common opinion among the people at large.“

Whether they are or are not remains to be seen, but what is clear is that our current systems are stressed.

I guess I just want to be hopeful that Hume’s guidance will help us stay focused on what is important, the outcome, not what we have become attached to, the process.