>Seriously? You realize that's delusional, right? Comments of this nature aren't constructive. It's better to restrain the urge to tell your correspondent that

>Seriously? You realize that's delusional, right? Comments of this nature aren't constructive. It's better to restrain the urge to tell your correspondent that their belief is delusional, and simply explain why you disagree with it. >Most people -- even most right wing folks! -- aren't libertarians. I think most people don't think deeply about the policies they support, and the implications of those policies. Most people don't think much about the nature of the law, for example. [1] The complexity of the political system results in people supporting policies that if they had the time to closely examine, they would not. Our political system is geared toward decision making based on shallow assessments and emotional gut-reactions, because it does not give the average person the ability to meaningful analyze the issues that they base their vote on. But in any case, I already said that for the sake our debate, let's accept your claim as correct. There's no need to try to expand this debate more than is necessary. >I don't think that we'll ever have occasion to even test this claim, because no sovereign state in its right mind would ever adopt a legal or financial system in which a computer bug or Chinese supercomputer could result in constitutional crisis. I have no idea where this suggestion that a sovereign state would replace its Constitution with a smart contract came from. Can you please go back to my comment and re-read what I suggested would happen? [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...