≡ Menu

KOL368 | Legislation vs. Law, with Robert Breedlove, of the “What is Money” Show

Play

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 368.

This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM099 (Youtube channel). We discussed legislation vs. (private) law—Centralized Law vs Decentralized Law, or as Hoppe refers to legislation, “democratic law-making”.

From Robert’s Episode notes: “Stephan Kinsella joins me to discuss the nature of centralized law legislated by fiat in comparison with decentralized law discovered through the observation of human action across time.”

Youtube:

Youtube outline/time stamps:

Related:

Share
{ 2 comments… add one }
  • Dennis Nezic December 31, 2021, 10:10 pm

    People have “stolen” other people’s hard-earned bitcoins by “guessing”/”cracking” their brain-wallets. This is not analogous to leaving cash on a park bench because it’s not obvious how mind-bogglingly powerful modern computation is. Who would have guessed that there are massive computation farms that have scoured most phrases in most encyclopedias and famous books, and are powerful enough to constantly scan this insanely long list of permutations. It’s more analogous to leaving your wallet behind, where your ownership of the money can be proven.

    If the perpetrator can be identified, I’m pretty sure every sane person would be okay with imprisoning him until he returns the “stolen” money, no? I guess the definition of property has to change slightly to accomodate this. This isn’t some esoteric fringe scenario either, it happens all the time. You’re right that third parties can’t be forced to modify the blockchain to return the money, but the perpetrator can be.

  • Dennis Nezic January 1, 2022, 3:39 pm

    It’s similar to someone having a locked box on the edge of their property, or maybe just slightly off their property, with big bright labelled tape covering it saying “do not take – this belongs to me”.

    It’s also kinda similar to the way we don’t pay upfront when we go to restaurants, it’s implied we’ll pay after.

    Ie. there’s an implied grundnorm, not to steal someone’s savings. Similar to Argumentation Ethics.

    I’m not sure where we disagree. If we could prove who cracked the password, wouldn’t you prosecute him? Or would you congratulate him on his good luck or clever cracking skills? Would you allow someone who guesses someone else’s online fiat-bank password to keep the money he transfers out of that account?

Leave a Reply

© 2012-2022 StephanKinsella.com CC0 To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a  Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.

-- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright