3 ms·
It was something “smart contract” proponents used to say, maybe still do. When I say code is law, I mean “law” in the physics sense. We can code, print “hello
by canoebuilder 6y ago
It was something “smart contract” proponents used to say, maybe still do.
When I say code is law, I mean “law” in the physics sense. We can code, print “hello world”, and know exactly what the code will do. We can write code up to some threshold of complexity and know exactly what it will do in all cases. Like how given certain information about a physical system we can calculate trajectories or whatnot up to some threshold of complexity.
I was making the point that civil law is a different kind of law from this physics sense of the word.
With more clarity, code is physics law, but civil law is not physics law, i.e. civil law cannot be fully ported to computer code.
Maybe I'm wrong and all civil law could be translated to computer code. Might that make for a better world? Even if possible, there's so much inertia in the system with lawyers and judges wanting to keep their job which is another human complexity that would have to be worked through.
- unhingingdog 6y agoCivil law can't be fully ported to computer code, but enough of it probably can. Most contractual issues don't get anywhere near a court. They're resolved via negotiation and alternative dispute resolution (and there's normally a contractual obligation to go this route before resorting to the courts). Dispute resolution is incredibly expensive, especially when you're dealing with multiple jurisdictions. Lawyers and judges haven't managed to stop parties using mediation and arbitration services offered by people who aren't legally trained, such as economists or people with extensive domain experience. But smart contracts would change the way contracts are written, as they're often intentionally ambiguous for a variety of reasons. There's also the problem of "oracles", but we already have a profession for translating real-world events into legal ones (notaries).