What difference do you see between the Sámi tribesmen enforcing his property rights, or the Finnish courts? Just because the Finnish "tribesmen" pay someone to do that task for them?
In both cases, property rights exist because there is a third party that decides who (by their rules) is the proprietor, and has the power to ensure that he gets possession of the thing, by taking it away from anyone who has possession of it but (in their view) is not the proprietor.
Both cases are examples of social control, but in the case courts the control
has become more complex and formalized procedure whereas in the case of
tribesmen it is more like an family affair. I would say that both instances originally
serve to protect the sacredness of ownership (see, I'm deliberately avoiding the
word "property") but as society becomes more complex, there may arise the
illusion that government, instead of being in charge of maintaining self-evident rights is
in fact the creator of them. And then it follows, as you point out, "property" is totally
arbitary and subject to whims of the powers that be.
I find such a situation to be a distressing and hope that we might be able to
take out human rights out of the domain of violence and instead uphold them by
voluntary associations that are governed by algorithmic consensus. So here I grant you
another semantic concession and merely propose that the
government that is responsible
of upholding property rights be replaced by peer-to-peer networks or similar.
Regarding the crowdfunding example, after inspecting the code I realize that it
is not a very satisfactory example, as it still requires external non-algorithmic input to
resolve whether the terms of the contract have been fulfilled. But a progress is still
being made towards the goal of realizing autonomous smart contracts.
Poll
