There are rules against murder. It doesn’t stop it, but it does deter and punish it.
I think we spend too much time thinking of edge cases and indemnifying society against them.
In the UK, we have the concept of common law. Technically there is no law against murder, but by common law everyone agrees it is wrong.
I think common law is an under used resource.
Fair point, rules don’t stop bad actors, just deter them. But murder laws, even common law, have clear boundaries. End-of-life decisions are murkier—emotions and motives blur lines. Common law’s great, but without explicit guidelines, it risks inconsistent rulings. How do we define consensus here?
Satoshi had a pretty good solution to the Byzantine generals problem.
