Askemos

Remember the back-button again! This is the detailed listing of a single statement in the database. One row per phrase (subject, verb, object).

Navigation: ">": best effort listing; "?": search this as new subject; "!": search as new verb/predicate; "." search this in object position. more…

> The Initial Contract
> description
>

A social contract comes down to a set of statements, which the peer promises to comply with. So far this initial act is unilateral.

This is a single-sided contract one can enter or exit any time. Insofar it's not yet a "real" ↗contract among several parties. And so is verification. No peer will ever consider the actual content of the contract from other peers for it's own decision making. (At least not yet, at this initial state - there's going to be a voluntary exception.)

The intend is to promise defending the "most general interest" all parties share anyway and get something in return.

The general will (common understanding) is controlled from those statements upheld by the peers/tokens/humans obliged to actively support (bear witness of) some process by means derived contracts.

Since the actual "text" of the initial contract in use by the token can change at any time, we need a minimum contract, which is assumed to be understood and accepted by all peers. (For it being simple and obvious; axiomatic in a way) Thereby we assure that even when the person fails to follow the contract the general will is consistent and correctly presents the actors rights and obligations.

  1. By matter of fact the token is bound and allowed to temporary rest, suspend or permanently cancel obligations from this contract. Therefore never assume our actors to wholesale transfer their rights (violate grant semantics) even if the token appears to signal consent.
  2. No contract ever changes.
  3. By reference to common knowledge a language definition for derived contracts is included. The peer will support and execute such contracts under the restrictions 1 and 2.

NB: A token appearing to request a violation the first rule is handled as if where at rest. It's usually considered broken somehow.

Eventually we signed off the promise to behave mostly rational but keep the freedom to fail.

In return we got the least common understanding of leagally binding obligations. The concept of contracts and their limits.

For any given concern a person will be in need to allocate as many tokens witness as felt reasonable. About the selected tokens bearer they must trust to keep promise to the contracted extend in the case at hand.

A nice example: The Debian Social Contract.

A side note wrt. the events in December 2012: Even an agreement to permanently transfer the right to participate in governance would fail to take effect unless the majority of peers actively circumvent the restrictions in the first rule.

A Remark To The Security Concious

Assuming the reader might disregard the lesson learned for any reason, the contract in it's simplicity might appear almost useless. Nevertheless having an operational symbol (i.e. an evidently true statement describing a conceivable operation) for an event which "shall never happen" (or deemed illeagal) is quite useful one when processing communication for consent.

The security concious mind will anyway not continiue with the gain from the contract. It will try to find a possible attack to proof it void. …(TBD: insert best one here. Needs more research.)