Something I've been questioning recently, inspired by a number of the recent debates and blog posts. Perhaps others may like to join the musings...
Can "rights" exist in a stateless society? If not ultimately by coercion supported by consensus, how can any rights be enforced?
Ownership is where property is accepted by the community as belonging to somebody, for their control. But without a means to identify this (looking through the block-chain to individuals) and to enforce this (ultimately via co-ordinated threats of some nature), does ownership really exist, or just the ability to control
, for as long as that ability is maintained? For example, sometimes we use the language that block-chains enforce property rights. But is this the most accurate language? Block-chains seem only to enforce control of property, to whoever holds the keys. Should the keys be lost or stolen, there is no way to enforce the attribution of the property back to the individual.
In a future state-less world, should a location-based community be attacked by drones for its geographic resources, what international law would prevail to uphold any rights of the "owners"? Are they left to coordinate and mount their own defence?Does everything come down to control, and the ability to attack and defend that control? Wouldn't this naturally lead to centralised and decentralised communities forming co-ordinated defensive mechanisms?