Alt Text
Show parent replies
why are those concepts appropriate to it? paul could likely confidently discuss how the purpose arises historically and for whom it operates on his view somewhat painlessly, but that story doesn't fulfill the philosophical justificatory task
* this is not an entailment, but an extension, as he says, but uh, it's a pretty drastic extension. and it's discussed with like some aspirational tone but it personally sounds nightmarish. again no gesture at rigor on personal computing and while it's understandable in a piece like this,
it's also the kind of thing you'd like to see developed somewhere. minimally, a supporting reference would be beneficial. otherwise it just seems like personal impression (which it is)
* by "ideological angles" we mean "vibes"
* "rights", if you wish to call them this, work very differently in a protocol context than in the context of a state. it would actually be interesting to see your breakout of what you take rights to be for each protocol respectively because it would
circle the drain on what you're getting at when you use the term (and it would probably be more approachable for you than the more abstract work arriving from the opposite end of things)
to draw out the above prompt: "assignment" is a key term in the above. who whom? with a state it's fairly clear, with a protocol it's more interesting
paulfrazee.medium.com/the-rules-to...
okay wait this is basically engagement with many of the points i brought up above on the more practical side (not rights though, other political concepts), but it's all the more frustrating lol
first of all the maddening cup-shuffle game of "where does Power REALLY reside?" miners, validators, clients, oh my
the section "blockchains as state" was so funny because we flip flopped from state as in stateful to state as in nation state, i had to bewilderedly re-read it a few times. i'd have to think more from a philosophy of law pov if i agree property ledger maintenance is such a core function of states
but then he seems a little lost, "power" is kind of a meaningless buzzword here but "monopoly of violence" not so much, and is not synonymous with violence simpliciter
we correctly identify legitimacy as the proper concept under discussion at the end but we're still oscillating between multiple senses of the term and it still feels colloquial. legitimacy in the eyes of public discourse is different than protocol-level legitimacy.
membership in the political community of a blockchain also works differently than in the nation state metaphor. we buzzword "consent of the governed" but is that actually the general theory of legitimacy you're operating under? and what would it mean for a validator or miner to consent?
the reason it matters is that i predict you'll run into the same mess that liberal statists run into when trodding that line, and that you can't have the intuitive pleasantries and full moral force of consent while connecting that to the discrete actions that actually drive things
the closing paragraphs make rhetorical sense, and rhetorical sense alone. which is kind of how i feel reading these political-philosophy-as-metaphor type posts always are. very little substance it's just gestures at familiar things
like highkey hobbes would be killer here!! don't just say 'leviathan' and smugly walk away!!