[analog31]

I don't think contracts can replace law. Imagine having to read and understand a unique 3000 page contract in order to buy a share of stock, or a house, or to get married. Imagine trying to do something like loan money if you have no way of knowing what someone's existing financial obligations are. I think the volume of economic activity would plummet.

"Monopoly on violence" is something I've heard about before. Is this theory supported by evidence? Actually I think that a monopoly on violence might be a good thing. The number of bodies that can engage in violence is either 0 or 1, or many.

I read a translation of Njal's Saga which takes place in pre-literate Iceland. The erstwhile "government" had no monopoly on violence, except to assign cash damages in lawsuits. What the saga describes is basically a continuous blood feud.

[kaba0]

Also, people doesn’t seem to know about the separation of power. The US is definitely not the best example from the point of view of a totally democratic state, but a financial system does need some kind of “admin account” to actually dispute/enforce the agreed upon law. This is not solved by cryptos at all.

[notch656a]

Contract is just 'law' between consenting parties. When a third party gets involved in a way considered 'legitimate' without the consent of the first two (or N number of consenting parties), you have government.