4 ms·

I find this whole situation has an interesting parallel to international law. Unlike other kinds of law that are backed by the power of individual states, inter

by sgentle 10y ago

I find this whole situation has an interesting parallel to international law. Unlike other kinds of law that are backed by the power of individual states, international law exists in this weird zone where it's kind of law, but kind of also the United States can do whatever they want because they own all the aircraft carriers and what are you going to do about it punk? That's why it's funny to see Sealand, Hutt River Province, Liberland and other nation-hacking experiments say things like "The Law says this is our nation!". The law is an illusion that exists only in the shade of power, specifically power to provide enforcement. That illusion just doesn't work on the world stage. Any sufficiently powerful actual nation could come and take your island and no other nation would bat an eye. The only reason they don't is because it usually doesn't matter enough to even be worth the bad press. Ultimately, The illusion of law in Ethereum is implemented on top of the power of the miners involved. The miners can and possibly will eradicate The Attacker's carefully grifted money if it suits their interests. Power trumps law. This open letter is being written for two reasons: firstly, the power of the miners can be swayed by appealing to their ideals. Secondly, because this whole virtual legal playpen is still subject to real-world laws and, thus, state power. It's fascinating to see how quickly this smart contract experiment has turned into a struggle between these multiple levels of political power, with really nothing at all to do with the letter of the law as laid out in the contract. Well worth the price of admission, in my opinion.

toyg 10y ago
> this weird zone where it's kind of law, but kind of also the United States can do whatever they want because they own all the aircraft carriers and what are you going to do about it punk? That definition should go on university books, seriously. A lot of what we talk about when we discuss "international law" is a contorted way of making this or that nation prominence as morally justified. > and no other nation would bat an eye ... however, this is a bit too cynical. The UK definitely did "bat an eye" when Hitler seized Gdańsk/Danzig. Russia is currently under sanctions after its Crimea annexation. Just because we don't constantly respond to crisis with full military force, it doesn't mean that we don't care. I personally don't see the equivalence between this situation and international law, because this can really be resolved by a higher power (the State), if necessary by suppressing ethereum altogether. In international relations, there is simply no higher power.
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
  >> Russia is currently under sanctions after its Crimea annexation. Aye. And who's going to sanction the US for Iraq and Afghanistan? Russia? The fact that sanctions are imposed one-sidedly, only to the designated adversaries of the US is a testament to the fact that "international law" is just the will of whoever can enforce it (currently the US, duh).
  - krrrh 10y ago
    While you could say that the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq were misguided or detrimental, they are in a different legal category than outright annexation or territory, which also violated a specific clause in an agreement signed between Ukriane and Russia.
  - iofj 10y ago
    I think this is a major example of the fact that international law doesn't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... You see: America and the UK signed a treaty with Ukraine that specified that [1], in trade for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it had "inherited" from the USSR, they would go to war with Russia if Russia violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine (and this explicitly covers Crimea) As everybody knows, Russia invaded Crimea. The US ... well ... essentially canceled Putin's netflix subscription. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... Remember this the next time someone says somebody violates human rights. You have no human rights (in the sense that you can sue someone for violating your human rights. Of course in the US, you would almost never need to, except if you get a one way ticket to Guantanamo. And those cases ... failed). That means complaints about human rights are nothing more than a political talking point. But don't worry, the government that executed 15 people so far this year for calling for elections is guarding your human rights ! [2] [2] http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=47493 http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=47493 Of course if you said that it's the religion of islam itself that's a human rights violation. Well, at least for sharia, that's certainly true.
- 10y ago
mannykannot 10y ago
All law is ultimately backed by the ability to enforce it, it is just a little less obvious to those who have grown up as a member of the privileged majority in a prosperous, liberal western-style democracy (the privilege that I am referring to is precisely that of growing up in etc.) It is so unobvious to some of them that they turn to a fanciful version of libertarianism as the imagined solution to their mostly-imagined slights.
dogma1138 10y ago
That not how international law works. International law doesn't really "exist", it's a convoluted assortment of treaties that were signed and ratified by different countries and if you and another country signed the same treaty it gives lawyers the legal framework to work in because in this case all parties have agreed to play by the same rules(there is a slightly different between being a signatory and ratification which gives lawyers a weaker and a stronger argument but that's besides the point). Now while you might want to hyperbolically claim that the US has violated international law, the state department and the white house council would strongly disagree with you and they will be right. People throw the words international law and war crimes way too easily these days, and while I do believe that they believe that a country has violated international law or has committed war crimes they more often than not do so on moral reasons not on legal ones, and more often than not they are wrong.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by sgentle 10y ago

toyg 10y ago

> this weird zone where it's kind of law, but kind of also the United States can do whatever they want because they own all the aircraft carriers and what are you going to do about it punk? That definition should go on university books, seriously. A lot of what we talk about when we discuss "international law" is a contorted way of making this or that nation prominence as morally justified. > and no other nation would bat an eye ... however, this is a bit too cynical. The UK definitely did "bat an eye" when Hitler seized Gdańsk/Danzig. Russia is currently under sanctions after its Crimea annexation. Just because we don't constantly respond to crisis with full military force, it doesn't mean that we don't care. I personally don't see the equivalence between this situation and international law, because this can really be resolved by a higher power (the State), if necessary by suppressing ethereum altogether. In international relations, there is simply no higher power.

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
>> Russia is currently under sanctions after its Crimea annexation. Aye. And who's going to sanction the US for Iraq and Afghanistan? Russia? The fact that sanctions are imposed one-sidedly, only to the designated adversaries of the US is a testament to the fact that "international law" is just the will of whoever can enforce it (currently the US, duh).
- krrrh 10y ago
  While you could say that the invasions of Afganistan and Iraq were misguided or detrimental, they are in a different legal category than outright annexation or territory, which also violated a specific clause in an agreement signed between Ukriane and Russia.
- iofj 10y ago
  I think this is a major example of the fact that international law doesn't exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... You see: America and the UK signed a treaty with Ukraine that specified that [1], in trade for Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it had "inherited" from the USSR, they would go to war with Russia if Russia violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine (and this explicitly covers Crimea) As everybody knows, Russia invaded Crimea. The US ... well ... essentially canceled Putin's netflix subscription. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... Remember this the next time someone says somebody violates human rights. You have no human rights (in the sense that you can sue someone for violating your human rights. Of course in the US, you would almost never need to, except if you get a one way ticket to Guantanamo. And those cases ... failed). That means complaints about human rights are nothing more than a political talking point. But don't worry, the government that executed 15 people so far this year for calling for elections is guarding your human rights ! [2] [2] http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=47493 http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/?p=47493 Of course if you said that it's the religion of islam itself that's a human rights violation. Well, at least for sharia, that's certainly true.
10y ago

mannykannot 10y ago

All law is ultimately backed by the ability to enforce it, it is just a little less obvious to those who have grown up as a member of the privileged majority in a prosperous, liberal western-style democracy (the privilege that I am referring to is precisely that of growing up in etc.) It is so unobvious to some of them that they turn to a fanciful version of libertarianism as the imagined solution to their mostly-imagined slights.

dogma1138 10y ago

That not how international law works. International law doesn't really "exist", it's a convoluted assortment of treaties that were signed and ratified by different countries and if you and another country signed the same treaty it gives lawyers the legal framework to work in because in this case all parties have agreed to play by the same rules(there is a slightly different between being a signatory and ratification which gives lawyers a weaker and a stronger argument but that's besides the point). Now while you might want to hyperbolically claim that the US has violated international law, the state department and the white house council would strongly disagree with you and they will be right. People throw the words international law and war crimes way too easily these days, and while I do believe that they believe that a country has violated international law or has committed war crimes they more often than not do so on moral reasons not on legal ones, and more often than not they are wrong.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]