I had these specific contentions, which I'll go further into:

1. Constitutions are not law, they constrain law
2. The origin of law is social
3. Where you have invoked international law, you are being inconsistent in using your definition of law with theirs - they are incompatible. Your argument cannot work on principle because of this.

The first point we'll let go as you didn't address it.

To the second, I'll add some detail. I did not say that society makes laws, I said that the origin of law is social. That is, there is no reason to create law without society, or in other words, without relationships between people. And where two or more people live, there is some society. I think we basically agree on this. But probably not this: **Laws codify the boundaries of those relationships.**

For example it is generally accepted (right?) that we feel biologically compelled to take care of our children, due to a combination of instincts and feelings / emotions. Further to that we are _taught_ that we should take care of children and how we should do it, both implicitly and explicitly. Further again is that this relationship of care giving is exactly codified and importantly _enforced_ by law.

These laws in particular are based around the way things are and guarding against the way things also are but we decide they should not be, because of the obvious harm caused. It's accepted that there is some minimum standard below which we are neglecting them at best, or abusing them at worst, and this is written into law. It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, it will be applied to you.

One of the things laws in a social context also do is protect those who break the law from punishment which is out of proportion or against the principles of the society. Justice is taken out of the hands of the general public and into the hands of the agents of the state. So if you abuse a child you cannot then be decapitated, your house burned down and your entrails sent to your relatives. Perhaps this is too much protection, but that's part of the idea of it.

This idea of law, as prescriptive, is explicitly antithetical to your view:

> Second, "Law," as I use the term, is not prescriptive, it is descriptive. It does not define how people should act; rather, it describes how they agree to act. Law is a description of the interactions of human beings. [...] All of this [communicative] context which is understood and accepted between a group of people is referred to as the law between that group of people.

Law may be descriptive, but is always prescriptive, by the fact that there are consequences to not following it. They are two sides of the same coin, given that there actually _are_ consequences.

Where law comes from is not the individual. It is a collaboration between individuals. If laws are not generally reflective of the views of the populous, they will often not be followed. Law and the idea of law has been inherited from our ancestors of the ancient past and in this way it is social too, and not reinvented every generation by every individual. We do not have a record of a civilization without socially defined and originated law.

What this implies is that your definition is extremely individualistic. You mention the community but I hazard that your views are more in line with individualist anarchism, and the idea that community coercion on the individual is never acceptable.

---

On point 3, at its core, I read that you believe jurisdiction requires _your individual consent_. The same argument can be made with respect to any system of power, that if those who are "subject" to it do not consent then it has no power. This has been mythologized by the movie The Matrix for example, where when Neo finally gets how to free his mind, it's just not obeying the rules. It's a powerful image.

However it rests on the premise that the only thing making us subject to these things are ourselves. This is also a common theme in political activism as it inevitably strikes you "what if we all just didn't do what we're told?" Again, compelling.

The reason why we cannot simply think ourselves out of oppression though is that it is physical, so resistance requires either escaping influence, by distance or hiding, or mass coordinated action. Sure, this _starts_ with thinking, but requires action, and in the later case also communication, agreement, etc. An individual cannot wish away the power of the state nor the jurisdictions that it defines.

The idea comes to us, well jurisdictions are just agreed areas. True. They are "made up" the same way anything between people is, by agreement. The question is always, **what happens if I don't recognize this? What power do they have over me?** Often it is the real power which makes the "imaginary" agreements real. Bullets, battons, water cannons, prisons, property seizure, etc. are all real. Other things are less real, such as restraining orders, contracts, etc., but they are always backed up by force.

There are many current serious conflicts over jurisdiction, i.e. territory. The Kurds come to mind, the Palestinians, Catalonians, and I've even met Texan separatists. In general these are ultimately disputed using violence.

There are lots of "micronations" which are not recognized by established states but many of them are nations _de facto_ because of a lack of opposition or assertion of control of the territory of the micronation. I would say that this is tacit recognition, or as good as it. Violence is rare in these cases. For example, the [Republic of Molossia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Molossia), in Nevada, is not recognized by the US and so is and isn't a nation, but the Molossians do consider it a nation. I wonder do they pay taxes to the US? That's usually where these things get to and would be one of the tests of nationhood.

So, a blockchain could be a new jurisdiction, in a completely new way, I'll give you that. But your argument to say how a country would be _forced to recognize it under international law_ is incorrect. However what does it mean for it to be a jurisdiction? One cannot live in the blockchain (yet? until we can download ourselves 😉).

---

I agree, the application of law can come down to "base thuggery", i.e. force. _Justitia_ (Lady Justice) has scales in one hand but a sword in the other. The idea is that we will want the thug on our side when we are wronged, and protection from it when we are righteous. We all live with this conflict. I think your exercize here has been to try to resolve that conflict.

> The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper names. Thuggery and lawlessness are thuggery and lawlessness, regardless of whether the thug wields a badge or a gavel or any other talismans, and regardless of whether he can confuse you with legal incantations.

I can agree with this. Though I disagree with your redefinition of "law", that the state has power and is often thuggish is true. However saying this is lawlessness is to miss the point. They are just _bad laws_ if they result in thuggishness. You do not object to laws as such, and I have shown that there is no meaning to say one has one's own laws, so this follows. I stated before I think many accept using thuggery when it suits them and I believe this is one of the reasons why these laws survive.

The laws or "legal incantations" may be reprehensible to you, but your argument in the piece did not directly attack this nor explore it. I would be interested in reading that if you were to write it.

> When you understand the origin of law, you understand that these trappings do not legitimize the behavior in the least, they only trick people into submission.

To be clear, you have not laid out the origin of law, but a completely alternative idea of it. That people are tricked into accepting terrible laws is a different issue, one worthy of attention in my view.