On Jan 16, 2017, at 7:38 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: >> >> If you invent contracts, do you necessarily invent civil law to go with >> them? I know Agora’s had contract systems with teeth a few times, and every >> one I’ve been able to dig up has come with _some_ kind of empowered >> judiciary - even if it’s just making CFJ findings binding for contract >> disputes. >> >> -o >> > Did you see my mail from half an hour ago? That's actually one of the > main advantages of reimplementing the 2010 system. > > Oh, and just to address a potential objection, I'm not suggesting > throwing away our current systems. I know people spent a lot of work > on the economy, for instance. That can be merged easily. The Cards > system is harder to merge, and removing it may be the better option, > although merging it with NoVs is possible.
I had not. I’ll have a deeper read over the 2010 system! I had another idea, summarized as: > A contract is an Organization stating that it is one. The parties of that > contract are the members of the Organization. It seems … surprisingly complete, for a two-sentence idea. It’d cause a proliferation of organizations (and thus more work for the Secretary) but organizations are _incredibly_ flexible right now, and they’re self-scoping. A organization charter stating that the members must post bonds, or controlling when it is appropriate for the organization to pay the parties out of its own funds, would fill most of the roles of both a contract system and an escrow system. You can build trusts on top of that fairly easily. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
