The natural legal form of blockchain

The institutional significance of blockchain structures has attracted more and more attention. When we regard blockchain technology entities as a self-existence derived from our own rational expression, we can recognize the blockchain system as a constructive reduction of "natural law". ^[1] Here, the blockchain structure we recognize is not only a technical architecture of a computer language, nor is it just an innovative architecture for low-cost and barrier-free transmission of distributed information. It also lies in its self-definition ability of block nodes and the resulting redefinition of all linked structural elements.

Mr. Han Feng, a well-known scholar in the field of blockchain research, mentioned Professor Gu Xueyong’s concept of “autonomous language system” in his article “Entropy, Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence” ^[2] . He directly revealed the “non-technical nature” of blockchain technology by cutting into the blockchain system from the perspective of pure science. This not only provides a method for blockchain research and thinking, but also provides a paradigm standard for the nature of blockchain systems: autonomous and self-existent.

From the technical level of blockchain, its innovative architecture and self-definition ability are derived from the fact that the distributed structure gets rid of the central server, and the solidified link relationship of the block nodes makes the relationship between data irreversible, thus achieving the "self-proof" of data. It should be noted here that, first, the time dimension (timestamp) of the blockchain determines the technical and theoretical basis of its "self-proof". The time standard links the validity and identity of the blockchain; second, the fairness of the block is established in the randomness of distributed network computing and the deterministic architecture of distributed argumentation. This is the technical attribute of the blockchain that is generally respected by people. It does not rely on any dominant or dominant intention of any individual or institution, but is caused by the random symbiosis of any distributed "participants". This should be the technical attribute of the blockchain "co-governance structure".

Consensus and co-governance structure of blockchain system

We have already widely noticed and recognized the characteristics of blockchain in terms of certain institutional construction. The most important of these characteristics may be the value of the blockchain trust mechanism. "Through credit consensus, blockchain can not only truly realize the full functions of global currency and payment... (it will also) go far beyond the economic fields of currency, payment and finance, and will quickly use its advantages to begin to reshape every aspect of human society." ^[3] This characteristic or advantage presented by blockchain technology, and the future expectations presented by this characteristic, should all be derived from the basic value consensus behind this "credit consensus."

The process of social development and practical experience clearly show that a social governance structure and its institutional manifestations are supported by the actual legal form and legal concept. This support means that the legal concept is the basis and premise of the social governance structure and institutional form, while supporting and guaranteeing its continuity and consistency, thus achieving the form of a "co-governance structure" supported by a consensus structure. Therefore, revealing the consensus on the basic value of the blockchain system is not a technical issue, nor is it for application purposes, but a rational expression of the consciousness attributes of the inherent nature of the blockchain system. This is the premise for ultimately achieving blockchain applications and completing the upgrade of the social legal structure under its "co-governance structure".

At present, the discussion on the consensus structure of blockchain has been launched. In the article "Blockchain, Decentralization and Natural Law", the author preliminarily expounded on his views on this issue, that is, the basic consensus of blockchain must and must be natural law. We pointed out its self-existence through the technical attributes of blockchain, and revealed the homogeneity and decentralization of its blocks and system elements. From its freedom of undifferentiated subjects, we confirmed the natural law "standard" of blockchain elements.

In his book The Foundations of Natural Law, Fichte expounded the concept of natural law, which was the first to comprehensively break through the theocracy framework and Kant's rights relationship framework based on moral rationality, and constructed natural law on the basis of human nature. That is to say, natural law is first of all human rights. It does not come from God, but is only the natural construction of human rationality between people and groups. It is neither deprivable nor granted. Secondly, Fichte's natural law is based on human rationality and experience. At the same time, it abandons the concept of absolute rationality (it is too much like God), recognizes and determines that human rationality is limited rationality, thus establishing a consensus foundation including empirical basis for the legal rights relationship and rule of law structure of real society. This actually opens up a smooth ideological channel for pure rational philosophy to move towards practical legal philosophy. Modern economics is basically based on practical theory with limited rationality as the premise and analysis parameters. Thirdly, based on the social composition of natural law, the modern institutional system (state and law) is constructed through social contract. Contract structure and contract relationship are both methods and forms, as well as practical frameworks. Here, we can not only determine the methods and forms in which natural law takes effect, but also expand the content of natural law practice.

Obviously, Fichte's natural law thought is actually a logical system that evolves from a consensus structure to a co-governance structure, and is a thought process and practice structure constructed according to reason. Similarly, the blockchain system we are discussing and practicing now is also a social governance system and its practice process that should be based on natural law and move from a consensus structure to a co-governance structure. Unlike Fichte's 17th and 18th centuries, when social thought was based on breaking theocracy and moving towards modernity, the values ​​and humanistic thoughts advocated by modern society have long been mature. Although old ideas will continue to rise, the mainstream of modernity is deeply rooted in history and reality and is difficult to shake. The problem is that since the intellectual revolution of the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century, although there are great differences in the institutional construction of the East and the West, both have the problem of "habitually" establishing practical and institutional systems based on "absolute rationality". No matter how their "absolute rationality" is explained, they are trapped in contradictions within the formalized or solidified category of "absolute rationality". Ultimately, the "limitations" of human limited rationality lead to the results of social practice being different from their "absolute rationality" to varying degrees. This is more obvious in Eastern socialist practice. Limited rationality has never established a systematic standard of action in its practice.

The natural law of blockchain is both a form of consensus and a form of co-governance

So what exactly is the form of natural law rights presented in the blockchain structure? Can we reach a consensus on natural law rights at this basic level and form a co-governance community based on it?

First, the concept of natural law we are talking about is not a special concept that only exists in the blockchain system. It must be universal and adapted to social existence. In our context here, it must be based on rational universal consciousness. We don’t need to explain too much at this level, just as the blockchain itself is not only a technological phenomenon, but also a rational premise of the social environment and ideological environment on which the social phenomenon is based.

Second, the blockchain system cannot presuppose that there is an "establisher" outside of it, but can only have an initiator in practice. Fichte pointed out that "the essential characteristic of rationality is that the actor and the patient are the same thing." ^[4] The technical rationality of the blockchain structure is a decentralized structure in itself, and of course it cannot accept an additional "God in itself." Even for private chains with targeted applications, their establishment depends on the self-selection of the establisher. In Fichte's words, it is either inevitable or free. It is impossible to imagine an objectified self outside the designer's self. ^[5] Therefore, in turn, it can be confirmed that the rational unity and subject-object unity of the block and its chain under the inference of "rationality is action." In popular terms, it can be roughly expressed that the blockchain system has no "God", which is also the essence of the decentralized nature of the blockchain system and the basis of the natural law form.

Third, in the blockchain system, the concept of natural law is not introduced, it is inevitable. In other words, no one has filled the blockchain system with a consensus on natural law and then interpreted this natural law in the blockchain. Any blockchain element, subject, participant, or initiator sets itself as rational, and rationality is freedom. In turn, it must set others as free, just as it sets itself as free; in the basic setting of the blockchain, "undivided action" is not only a setting, but also determines the scope and method of free sharing. The set freedom cannot be attributed entirely to oneself, because there is the freedom of others. The limited freedom of self and others realizes complete freedom in the blockchain as a whole. "The concept of (natural) law is a concept about the necessary relationship between free beings" ^[6] . Here, Fichte has demonstrated that the inevitable result of free rational beings is natural law. When we confirm from the above citations and the recognition of the certainty of blockchain that the technical characteristics of the existence of the blockchain system must be based on technical rationality and the rational setting of the participating subjects, we can confirm its consensus basis of natural law.

Fourth, we have denied the existence of a “setter” outside the blockchain system, but it is based on the self-setting of rational beings, and essentially takes the setting of self as the object. “The ultimate and highest matrix B of the rational being’s reflection on itself must return to its own self-determined initiative.” ^[7] Based on the homogeneity of the free setting of rational beings mentioned above, the objectification of self-setting is identical to the objectification of every other. In this way, any setter in the blockchain system is no longer an external setter. Self-setting in the rational object blockchain is also an object of the same natural law form in the practice process.

Fifth, the blockchain system is effective because of the certainty and utility of the relationship between the relevant subjects achieved based on its unique technical characteristics and regulations. The most direct content is its contract setting. The entire blockchain system is a setting of a certain contractual relationship. The development prospect of its smart contract is the technical extension of the original contractual relationship in the time dimension. Whether technically or logically, the cornerstone of this contractual relationship, that is, the basic consensus on which it is based, must be written into the blockchain code once and for all, even if it is only a specific contractual agreement based on consensus. We already know that the characteristics of the blockchain cannot tolerate uncertain irrational conditions. Even in the choice of opinions with many differences, the greatest common divisor between the system subjects must be established, a rational existence that cannot be deprived or granted, which is the natural law right. This greatest common divisor is essentially the blockchain participants and all subjects, integrating the utility of the blockchain system into the boundaries of freedom, "as if they have divided this world as their scope of freedom between them... All people must establish as their own law not to interfere with the freedom of those with whom they interact." "In this way, we can get the entire object of the concept of legal rights, that is, the community between free beings in various countries." ^[8] According to our current understanding of the blockchain system, this community is mostly aimed at one or some real practical goals, and has a consensus under the framework of technical rationality. In fact, this is a consensus on the recognition of built-in rights, and ultimately a consensus on the basis of legal rights. In this way, we get a co-governance structure with a legal basis and specific trust goals, a community with specific practical content and rights subjects. Since the co-governance structure of this community takes natural law as its built-in consensus, no matter what practical principles and practical paths it follows, it will eventually connect with the real universal legal system and rule of law structure.

Author: Sand Dollar
Editor: Meng Dada
Source: Babbitt Information (http://www.8btc.com/natural-right)