Against Szabo’s Law

Unfortunately for everyone, Szabo’s radically anti-legal crypto law is too radically anti-legal to be part of a sensible crypto legal system. Szabo’s law minimizes crypto law. It comes at the exclusion of all other crypto law that might be concerned with making changes to the blockchain protocol. Hopefully you already see how absurd this is, but I’m going to spell it out as clearly as I can, in the following four parts:

Szabo’s Law breaks Crypto Law #2 (Keep Crypto Law Legal) Szabo’s Law is politically loaded, not politically minimal, apolitical or anti-political Szabo’s Law has an insecure and aggressive legal posture Szabo’s Law is not a part of the most socially scalable crypto legal system

Szabo’s Law breaks Crypto Law #2 (Keep Crypto Law Legal)

Nick Szabo sold blockchain developers on the idea that the minimization of blockchain governance and of crypto law would minimize their exposure to legal risk, by requiring them to exercise only the minimum amount of crypto legal power and judgement possible.

Unfortunately for these developers who probably had no legal training of any kind, Nick’s legal theory is actually very stupid, and based on a naive interpretation of how existing legal systems will interact with crypto legal systems.

If the response when a legal system brings a dispute to blockchain developer is “sorry, we can’t do anything for you”, as it will almost always be under Szabo’s law, then it has two natural reactions (assuming that the legal system believes that the devs can’t do anything). The first is for the legal system try to handle the disputes without any recourse through changes to the protocol. The second is to minimize the damage caused by unresolved or irremediable disputes by making the use and development of the blockchain protocol illegal.

Szabo’s firm hypothesis is that legal systems will be satisfied with their ability to manage the disputes that arise in blockchain governance but which cannot be remedied by crypto law thanks to Szabo’s law.

I can imagine lots of possible disputes that can’t be resolved (and will be ongoing) without changes to the blockchain protocol, and so my hypothesis is that Szabo’s law will make cryptocurrency illegal in many jurisdictions. Disputes that are not being adequately resolved by crypto law will be brought to existing legal systems, who in turn in some cases will not be properly able remedy the situation because they cannot change the blockchain protocol.

It should not be surprising, but a crypto legal system operating on principles as anti-legal as Szabo’s law will naturally eventually become illegal. As a result, Szabo’s law is in conflict with Crypto Law #2.

I’m not done arguing this point, I am going to come back to it after describing the legal posture of crypto legal systems that adopt Szabo’s law.

Szabo’s Law is politically loaded, not politically minimal, apolitical or anti-political

While Szabo’s Law is sold on the principle that politics is to be minimized, its crypto legalization was a deeply politically motivated act. I don’t know what Szabo’s political goals actually are, but it is safe to assume that he believes that they can be brought closer to reality by legalizing autonomous software into existence.

Not only does the legalization of Szabo’s law determine governance outcomes (always in favor of not intervening with the execution of software), it minimizes the space for political and legal conversations that question whether those outcomes are desirable.

It locks blockchain governance and crypto law on a collision course with the consequences of creating autonomous software. It’s impossible to predict all of the ways that this can go wrong, impossible to predict all of the disputes that will arise if we go down this route, but it is the route that Szabo chose for us based on his worldview.

He imagines a world in which crypto political and legal processes are necessarily going to go against either his personal preferred political outcomes, or against the public good, and therefore must be minimized.

This positioning makes sense if Szabo wants to do something very politically unpopular or something very illegal. It also makes sense if Szabo is so radically jaded that he believes that crypto law and politics cannot be worth the effort, no matter what form the crypto legal system might take.

But in either case, Szabo’s clear intention is to use crypto law to determine blockchain governance outcomes without participating in blockchain politics (which, conveniently, is to be minimized according to Szabo’s law). The legalization of Szabo’s law was therefore a highly politically charged crypto legal action.

Szabo’s law is not anti-political. It is a law that is aimed at shutting down political debate in order to guarantee Nick’s preferred political ends.

I regard this kind of anti-social behavior to be bad-faith participation in blockchain governance.

Szabo’s law has an insecure and aggressive legal posture

I don’t just mean that shutting down political debate is an insecure way to achieve your political goals.

Crypto law’s current posture of “we don’t deal with disputes that aren’t related to maintenance” and “sorry, there’s nothing we can do for you” is insecure and aggressive.

“We don’t deal with disputes that aren’t related to tech maintenance” is insecure in crypto law’s ability to legitimately manage the disputes that might arise in blockchain governance.

“There’s nothing we can do for you” is an aggressive posture, when someone has a legitimate dispute.

And why is crypto law insecure and aggressive?

Because of a radical law born of the view that politics and law are completely unworkable and not worth trying in any circumstance or configuration whatsoever. Because of Nick Szabo’s insanely stupid crypto law.

Nick is insecure in his ability to participate in political and legal process, and in his ability to come up with legal systems that actively manage disputes, and his crypto law reflects it. He is very aggressive in his quest to create autonomous software, and his crypto law reflects it.

This legal posture is in direct conflict with Crypto Law #2. It invites conflict with existing legal systems. Legal systems don’t like to be involved in disputes with insecure, aggressive legal systems.

Who does?

Nick’s legal posture might be cool as a kind of radical cypherpunk crypto legal philosophy. Maybe. But it’s not appropriate for blockchain governance, not today, and probably not ever.

Szabo’s Law does not create the most socially scalable crypto legal systems

I don’t think that Nick imagines that an aggressive and insecure legal posture is the most socially scalable legal posture. And it obviously isn’t.

Nick believes that a crypto law that legalizes autonomous software will form a better basis for socially scalable society than is possible under any conceivable crypto legal system that is more political or legalistic.

I am very skeptical about his position, because I don’t believe that autonomous software is at all safe, you know, for humans in society.

Nick knows that autonomous software isn’t always going to be legal or politically popular, and he is determined to use crypto law to shut down any legal and political coordination that would undermine his mission. This antisocial behavior makes me question whether Nick is even concerned with the social scalability of public blockchains.

Assuming that Nick has good intentions, then I am absolutely certain that Nick Szabo is not the best legal thinker in the world. Someone can come up with crypto law that is more socially scalable than the crypto law Nick came up with so he could bring autonomous software into the world. There’s no doubt about it.

Maybe enough people are as radically paranoid of legal and political processes as Nick that even a slightly more reasonable crypto legal system will be broadly seen as untrustworthy. I don’t know. But I’m ready to have faith and to bet my life that we can do much, much better than the insecure, aggressive crypto law we have today.

A much more secure crypto legal posture is possible if we abandon Szabo’s law

Crypto law doesn’t have to be this way.

Legal realities do not warrant the posture of today’s crypto law.

Cryptocurrency is more-or-less legal. We need to relax.

Szabo’s law is anti-legal and anti-political. We need to abandon Szabo’s law to adopt a more open and secure legal posture. One that acknowledges rather than shrugs off its responsibility to carefully manage disputes. One that does not write crypto law to push politically unpopular outcomes on society. We can’t adopt a secure and open crypto legal posture without first abandoning Szabo’s law.

But we don’t need to know anything about the future of crypto law to assume a more secure posture, and benefit from the more comfortable position. We can immediately embrace a much more correct position, one that does not change crypto law except by abandoning Szabo’s law:

Crypto Law is responsible for managing disputes in blockchain governance, and making sure that they are resolved via legal processes that don’t break the protocol.

Crypto law is still nascent, and I have no clear picture where it will go in the future. But I don’t need to know where it will go to see that it needs to abandon Szabo’s law in order to develop in a healthy way.

We cannot foresee the nature of all of the blockchain governance disputes that will arise in the future, and need to retain the ability to remain flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances, we cannot afford to blindly pledge our fates to a future with autonomous software.

We have crypto law because we have protocols for managing blockchain governance disputes. We need these protocols to be sensible, so that we don’t create unnecessary headache and hardship when disputes arise. We need to believe in our ability to manage blockchain governance disputes based on sound crypto legal work — which means not breaking the protocol and keeping crypto law operations legal — at an absolute bare minimum.

We should admit that we need more legal principles, and more crypto law. We should admit that we need to come to a new understanding of how disputes in blockchain governance ought to be resolved.

We should admit that we collectively have an obligation to manage the disputes that will arise from the operation of global public blockchains to the best of our crypto legal ability, so that as many people as possible can enjoy the benefits of global public blockchains.

This secure, open-minded posture is much more comfortable than the aggressive, insecure posture we have today.

I hope you’re already feeling more comfortable!

If crypto law fails to tactfully manage disputes, the result is more plausibly going to be that blockchains (and the operation of crypto law) become illegal, than that blockchains remain legal and autonomous and become as widely adopted as Nick Szabo imagines they will. The only way the law-abiding public can have the most benefit from global public blockchains is with a new crypto legal system.