November 2015 Journal

WORDS is a monthly journal of Bitcoin commentary. This issue collects the November 2015 writing in the WORDS archive. For the uninitiated, getting up to speed on Bitcoin can seem daunting. Content is scattered across the internet, in some cases behind paywalls, and content has been lost forever. That’s why we made this journal, to preserve and further the understanding of Bitcoin.

Subscribe

---

On block sizes

By Mike Hearn

Posted November 2, 2015

这是文章的中文翻译。

The Bitcoin block size issue is currently deadlocked, with nothing happening. Nor is anything going to happen: unlike what the community has been led to believe, the Bitcoin Core maintainers are not going to give the community a block size increase regardless of how many people want one.

In this article I will cover the current status of BIP 100, why Bitcoin Core is not going to raise the block size limit, the recent admission that Core doesn’t actually use consensus to make decisions, and why the conference in December isn’t going to change anything.

BIP 100

About 60% of the hash power is currently voting for BIP 100. Whilst I understand why miners like the idea, here’s the current status:

• BIP 100 is not implemented.
• Jeff has not been working on it. He has been working on different projects (a little virtual machine called Moxiebox and also changing database layers). BIP 100 is “in the queue”.
• Even if someone does implement it, the code won’t be accepted into Core: the two Bitcoin Core maintainers who have the final say have not stated any support for it, and they don’t seem to believe in miner voting anyway.

Core is against miner voting

At the Scaling Bitcoin conference in Montreal discussion of actual proposals was forbidden, but nonetheless there was an “illegal discussion” held in a corridor. According to a summary it concluded almost nothing, but one thing apparently everyone agreed on was this:

- Hard fork method:  Leaning towards "if (timestamp > X)" flag day hard fork Y months in the future.  Set high bit in version, resulting in a negative number, to more cleanly fork away.  "miner advisement" - miners, as they've done recently, signal non-binding (Bitcoin Core does not examine the value) engineering readiness for a hard fork via coinbase moniker. Some fork cancellation method is useful, if unsuccessful after Z time elapses.

Translated into English, this states that — unlike BIP 100 or BIP 101 — there would be no miner voting at all, not even on readiness to trigger the change.

Instead, miners would merely “advise” their opinions and the Bitcoin Core maintainers would then examine the advice and decide whether to ignore it or not. The fork would then happen on their chosen date regardless of how many miners had upgraded or whether there was any community support for it. As there’s no vote, some sort of (unspecified but presumably centralised) method would be created by which the Bitcoin Core maintainers can cancel the fork.

It’s very surprising that after criticising myself and Gavin for suggesting “only” 75% voting support for making a change, the one thing the handful of Bitcoin Core devs at the conference could agree on was that if the block size changed, the level of miner support for the change should be entirely irrelevant.

All this doesn’t matter much though, because:

Core won’t raise the limit

There’s a widespread belief in the Bitcoin community that all Bitcoin developers want the block size to rise and all that’s required is enough time for them to reach consensus about the best way to do it. These beliefs probably come from the fact that the community has repeatedly been told that by people involved in development.

Both beliefs are entirely wrong.

When you boil away the noise, there are only 5 people in the world who can make changes to the Bitcoin Core source code:

• Gavin Andresen
• Jeff Garzik
• Wladimir van der Laan (the official maintainer, the man who does releases)
• Gregory Maxwell (Blockstream)
• Pieter Wuille (Blockstream)

Of those, three (Gavin, Jeff, Pieter) won’t make changes that upset the other two. This means that in practice those two men control the Core repository: Wladimir van der Laan and Gregory Maxwell.

Wladimir van der Laan (the maintainer) put himself down early on as “weakly against”. In fact, here is what he thinks about the block size issue after months of debate:

Yes, [my position remains the same]. If we’ve learned anything from the 2008 subprime bubble crisis it should be that nothing ever keeps growing exponentially, and assuming so can be hazardous …. Changing the rules in a decentralized consensus system is a very difficult problem and

I don’t think we’ll resolve it any time soon

.

Remember, this is the man who effectively runs Bitcoin, due to Core’s monopoly status amongst miners. He believes that technological progress isn’t going to keep going because in 2008 a lot of banks made bad loans to American homeowners.

There is illogical in the extreme: computer speeds have nothing to do with subprime lending practices. The financial crisis wasn’t caused by exponential growth.

So in case you are waiting for Core to make a move, remember this: there cannot be any code added to a Core release without Wladimir being satisfied with it. And he believes that any change to the block size at all simply can’t happen “any time soon”.

What does Maxwell think about a block size increase? He contradicts himself regularly; claiming he wants an increase but simultaneously stating he thinks it shouldn’t happen. So far, Maxwell has clearly stated support for zeroblock size proposals.Judge people by their actions rather than their words: when Gavin and I asked him to put a specific counterproposal on the table he answered with the Lightning Network (and 1mb blocks forever).

I think Bitcoin Core isn’t going to let the blockchain grow into the future. Not now, not in December, not ever. The two people who can push the button for adding code to Core won’t allow it.

Conflicts of interest

Many of the Bitcoin Core developers have been hired by Blockstream, a company that recently announced a private, subscription-based side chain called Liquid. It’s intended to connect Bitcoin exchanges together.

This is a problem because it means the developers the Bitcoin community are trusting to shepherd the block chain are strongly incentivised to ensure it works poorly and never improves. So it’s unsurprising that Blockstream’s official position is that the block chain should hardly change, even for simple, obvious upgrades like bigger block sizes.

Here’s a list of Bitcoin Core developers that have been hired by Blockstream:

• Gregory Maxwell (has commit access)
• Matt Corallo
• Jorge Timon
• Mark Friedenbach (who posts as maaku)
• Patrick Strateman (who posts as phantomcircuit)
• Warren Togami
• Adam Back
• Pieter Wuille (has commit access)

Developer consensus is a lie

But perhaps despite that, you still think that Core will do something if some sort of agreement amongst developers is reached. Undoubtably you have read this claim many times already, along with the related claim that changes can’t happen if they’re ‘controversial’.

Both claims are untrue.

Core makes changes when the guys with commit access decides to do so, not when everyone agrees ….. and Maxwell recently admitted it during a debate in which people were disagreeing with a change to the Bitcoin protocol rules that he wanted to see happen:

> [thomas zander] The point is that Bitcoin Core claims to have > a consensus mechanism and sticks to "no change" on not > reaching a consensus. And that rule is the reason why > bigger blocks were blocked for years.[gmaxwell] You're repeating Mike's claims there-- not anyone elses.

This statement is incredible: he flatly denies that a block size increase is waiting for agreement …. and then says that’s something I made up!

Fact check: In May, Gregory Maxwell himself said “Hardfork changes should only be made if they’re almost completely uncontroversial”. He was replying to an email from Matt Corallo (another Blockstream employee), in which Matt said:

“a consensus in this kind of technical community should be a basic requirement for any serious commitment to blocksize increase.”

In May, Pieter Wuille (one of the other 5 people who can commit changes to the code) said “I don’t think we can do a hard fork that is controversial in nature”.In August he again said, “Bitcoin’s consensus rules are a consensus system, not a democracy. Find a solution that everyone agrees on, or don’t.”

Adam Back (president of Blockstream and Maxwell’s boss) told IEEE Spectrum magazine, “Everybody should be in agreement and we should try to do this in concert.”

Most critically, van der Laan — the maintainer of Core — said in June:

…. anything that is controversial needs to be considered really carefully. If I suddenly start making changes to the consensus code without full agreement, by all means take away my commit privileges

The claim that Core demands full agreementto change the consensus code wasn’t made by me, it was made **by the guy who runs the project.

So why did Gregory suddenly spin 180 degrees like that?

Simple: suddenly a change he wanted had become controversial. People were disagreeing with him, so the need for agreement had to go. What better way to do it than claiming it had never existed at all?

By the way, undoubtably someone will claim that there are two classes of changes (soft and hard) and only the hard type needs full agreement. Don’t be fooled by this type of evasion: the same people commit changes to the code in the same way for any kind of change. Defining a technical category of change that has a single thing in it (block sizes) and then claiming everyone must agree only for that kind of changeis just another way of telling the community to shut up about block sizes.

Why December won’t change anything

In talking with miners and companies, one thing I’m hearing repeatedly is “we will wait for the second conference in December. If there’s no progress by then, we’ll switch to BIP 101”.

It seems that many, many people in the community believe that there is a commitment to have a solution by December. At the first conference, Gavin was explicitly promised there would be progress:

I’m giving Greg/Pieter/wlad a couple weeks to do what they said they’d do in Montreal — work on a solution everybody is unhappy with but everybody can live with.

If you haven’t been convinced by what you saw above already, consider the Montreal conference was over a month ago. Nothing has happened: the topic isn’t even mentioned in their weekly meetings. Only five weeks remain until the conference in Hong Kong. Five weeks for them to meet their promise of finding a solution “everyone can live with” … if they start tomorrow.

Here’s a bold prediction: they’re going to show up at the conference having violated the promise they made to Gavin. They will show up with nothing.

I keep being asked if I’m planning on going to Hong Kong. I’m not planning to and neither is Gavin. If the Bitcoin Core and Blockstream guys need two conferences and 10 months to decide how to change a single number that’s their problem: Gavin, myself and others were able to debate, choose, test, review and ship a specific proposal months ago.

Conclusion

The Bitcoin community is scared. I get that. Fighting and conflict is always scary; and miners with big investments worry that a controversial change could drop the price and cause them to lose money.

But every Bitcoin user, miner and investor faces a stark choice:

• Bitcoin Core: a project run by two men who have shown clear opposition to the block chain having a future. One of them works for a company that makes more money the worse the block chain gets: conflicts of interest don’t get more extreme than that.
• Bitcoin XT: a project run by two men who already shipped a compromise solution that reflects the demands of miners, users and companies.

Decentralisation comes not from some nebulous developer process that’s ignored the moment it goes against what Blockstream wants. It comes from people’s ability to be informed and then choose software that matches their beliefs. As it always did.

---

The Revolutionary Vanguard of The Digital Age

By BTCtheory

Posted November 3, 2015

“How is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people. Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience, that they are correct.” -Vladimir Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)

Vladimir Lenin was the leader of one of the most profound and powerful revolutions that the world has ever seen. Today he has been turned into little more than a goblin of the past by the powers that be. Comprised, defiled, and disposed by the masses due to a century of relentless propaganda against his ideas, and communism itself, most have never read anything of Lenin’s, but will still tell you his ideas were a failure. If we can take the time separate the filth from the facts, we can see that Lenin presented the revolutionary praxis through which the State can be destroyed. Over the course of the 15-years after Lenin released, “What is to be Done?” he build the largest vanguard party in history and destroyed one of the most powerful nation-states that ever existed. The tactic that allowed for Lenin to accomplish this is called vanguardism.

The Digital Vanguard and Proletarian Internationalism

To have a deeper understand of what exactly the vanguard is, we can look to international revolutionary and hero Che Guevara, who implemented Lenin’s ideas to help liberate millions across the globe:

“The vanguard group is ideologically more advanced than the mass; the masses understand the new values, but not sufficiently. While among the vanguard there has been a qualitative change that enables them to make sacrifices in their capacity as an advance guard, the masses see only part of the picture and must be subject to incentives and pressures of a certain intensity… All of this means that for total success a series of mechanisms, of revolutionary institutions, is needed.”

-Che, Man and Socialism in Cuba

What strikes me about this comment is this is the same sort of ideological position that Anonymous and other hacktivist groups have taken without exposing their statist identities. Though the ‘institutionalization’ of the revolutionary values found within digital technology, activist have been able to strip their physical bodies from the struggle, and enshrined them within digital practice. This allows for the entirety of the revolutionary vanguard to exist solely upon digital means alone. What makes this so incredible is that it allows for the fusion of anarchist and communist principals through practice alone. This practice allows for organization around the principals of strong crypto; which blinds the state, and stripped them of their ability to bring violence to revolutionaries.

The second important principal that comes from this digitization of the vanguard is the completeness in which it embraces proletarian internationalism. Through stripping our physical selves from the revolutionary praxis of the internet, we are forced to operate on only a global scale. There is no way to see our nationalities; only our mutual humanity–we can only deduce from our online interactions that the other person is human, and that is it. With the physical protection that is afford to us through this medium, it allows for us to see the full vulnerability of other humans within this system. Though we may not know the physical bodies of those we interact with, we can still see the fundamental properties that make them as flesh and blood as you and I. To see humans first and foremost as humans, and not as nationalities, sexes, races, or labor, is what forces the perspective of proletarian internationalism on to the digital vanguardism. This principal is forced upon from without, unlike communist vanguardism which vulgarizes its own principals in the name of one official power.

To Build a New Way Forward

When we can understand the internet as a revolutionary apparatus to destroy the state and usher in a new epoch based upon digital practices alone, we can see that the first two of Lenin’s principals of the vanguard have already formulated themselves. Heros like Ed Snowden and Julian Assange among many others, have seen the truly revolutionary power of the internet, and have used that power to show the world what a single human can do against the catastrophe of governments. They have set an example that shows the truly revolutionary power of the internet. This is why they have been so ruthless pursued by states, because they show how vulnerable their corrupt system is to our digital power. This power has been know for the better part of a decade, but it has only been with the advent of strong crypto that a single person can stand against the supposed omnipotence of the state; and prove that omnipotence to be little more than smoke and mirrors.

The second of Lenin’s principals (to organize with the broadest swaths of society) has been seen in the Arab Spring, and the failed Occupy uprisings. It proved that the internet can be used to communicate, and organize around revolutionary change. Since 2011 we are seeing more and more direct action being taken by hacktivist groups and individual strikes against various aspects of the state capitalism machine. Each victory in the form of data theft, a site take down against a major corporation, and the advent bitcoin all are displaying the weakness of the political-economic system. However, we also know from the aftermath of these events that the final, and most essential component of Lenin’s theory has not been enacted: Political leadership, strategy, and tactics.

The Need For A Revolutionary Vanguard

To quote Che again, “At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality. Perhaps it is one of the great dramas of the leader that he or she must combine a passionate spirit with a cold intelligence and make painful decisions without flinching. Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible.”

We must know and understand that is through our conviction that people shall always matter more than money, that we can change the world. To know that it is we who will fight against the wicked and corrupt, that it is us that shall liberate the impoverished and smash the chains of the oppressed! We do not do this for our hatred of those who oppress us, but for the love of those that we demand to be given the freedom they are rightfully entitled to. It is only through the revolutionary zeal and infinite capacity of our love for humanity over all else, that we can create a new, and better world.

Today we have a choice: we can continue to work within the system, when all evidence points to the corruption, and impossibility of creating substantial change, or we can take it upon ourselves to start actively organizing against this system. The only way that we will be able to create revolutionary change is through embracing the third and final principal of Lenin’s revolutionary vanguard: through political leadership, strategy, and tactics to help steer the masses towards liberation. The only way that this can be done is through the open organization and promotion of revolutionary tactics against the machine. By using the power of bitcoin, and the censorship-resistant blockchain we can create an alternative economy and society that is fully outside of the hands of the state.

---

Announcing new book on bitcoin and legal theory

By Konrad S. Graf

Posted November 8, 2015

POST HEADER

POST BODY

The first of several concurrent research and writing projects has just hatched: Are Bitcoins Ownable? Property Rights, IP Wrongs, and Legal-Theory Implications.

This is a study in the foundations and implications of action-based jurisprudence, forged through applying it to bitcoin. This brings together for the first time the two major fields on which I have been writing over the past five years.

The context includes relationships among crypto-anarchist thought (such as contract assurance through software code), conventional legal administration (bureaucratic classificationism and rule through law), and ideal legal practice (actual promotion of justice), as well as related philosophical issues such as the combined use of multiple knowledge fields and the ethics of legal practice. Among the book’s central themes is whether and how the same principles that both support property rights in measurable objects and locations and argue against IP claims in copiable ideas and abstractions may apply to the unique new case of bitcoin.

Here is the back-cover description:

Bitcoin has fresh implications for economics and law at many levels. This book addresses whether bitcoins ought to be considered ownable under an action-based approach to property theory, which—like bitcoin itself—transcends the boundaries of existing positive law jurisdictions. Beyond instinctive answers is a rich opportunity to examine the many technical facts and legal-theory issues involved. Bitcoin has a unique new place among types of economic goods, between the physically and spatially defined goods of property theory and the copiable, abstract ideas, patterns, and methods associated with IP rights. It does not fall so easily into existing categories.

The author brings together here for the first time his work in an approach to legal philosophy grounded directly in the analysis of human action, which he has termed action-based jurisprudence, with his several years of writing about bitcoin from a monetary theory perspective and contributing through articles, presentations, and video productions to raising general public understanding of how Bitcoin works on a technical level.

This content (22,000 words) is licensed under Creative Commons and has been made available in commercial paperback and Kindle versions on Amazon as well as other ebook store versions, and a free PDF of the paper version to facilitate quick and full access to the text, previewing, sharing, text searching (beats an index), quoting, and citation by page number.

Ways to support this work and encourage future work like it include spreading the word and sharing, writing reviews on Amazon and elsewhere, posting quotations, and buying a commercial edition.

Most of all, enjoy. Hopefully, no reader’s views on the topics addressed will remain entirely unaffected. Mine were not.

Paperback edition at Amazon ($6.99)

Ebook stores ($2.99): Kindle edition (free under Kindle MatchBook program for buyers of paper version), iBooks, Kobo, Nook, Oyster, Page Foundry, andScribd.

PDF of paperback edition (Free supplement to commercial editions or consider sending an optional bitcoin tip)

Watch the five-minute video introducing the book on my Amazon author page, which can also be followed for future releases.

The paperback version is available at least on US, UK, and EU area Amazon sites, but not sure about elsewhere. The Kindle version is available on most national Amazon sites worldwide.

POST FOOTER

/post

/content-wrapper

---

Introduction

By BTCtheory

Posted November 17, 2015

Over the last several years I have worked on this body of articles in an attempt to create a cohesive Theory of Bitcoin. Here is my abstract:

The Internet is a sovereign territory that exist outside and above the control of all state governments. Due to the international nature, and economic dependence that all states have on the internet; the internet has now become a spectre that is beyond any of their control. This combine with the imperious nature of bitcoin forms a new kind of money and power that can render the state useless. This power can supplant state institutions, and allow for all people of the world to economically and politically unite in 21st century, but only if we struggle to make it so. Using the internet and bitcoin we can create an international digital sydicate that will allow for the free economic and information exchange of all people around the globe as a single political body.

—

I have divided my writings into three (I, II, III) distinct sections. Part one explores the legal history of money; part two covers the economic functions of bitcoin; and part three covers the radical political, social, and economic ramifications of bitcoin.

Part One

This rather long section is of necessity to understand what exactly money is and how it functions from a legal and historical standpoint. There is a long and complicated legal and economic history of money and we must have some understanding of it in order to see how money is a distinct and separate object from value. We must understand that legal power over a long history has literally striped the intrinsic value from money, and replaced it with a false idol of fiat money. This is a form of theft that is only possible through legal means. This has allowed for all States to steal from their citizenry with great sophistication and guile through their alliance with the bankers. It has been over the course of several generations that money has ever-so-slowly lost its power as an intrinsic vehicle for wealth, and been enshrined in the legalist framework of state-capitalism. It is through the State’s monopolization of the mode of exchange–money itself–which has allowed for the State to divorced fiat money from intrinsic value. This in turn has created the great number of economic issues we face today.

To divorce intrinsic value from money itself is an incredible feat for the state; however, it is not without its problems. The state can only monopolize money through force and ideology, not majesty or science. States will always be unsuccessful with the monopolization of money, and history can testify to that.

This is where understanding the mechanics of bitcoin becomes extremely important. Because of bitcoin’s known, fixed monetary supply, infinite divisibility, and imperious security through cryptography; bitcoin becomes something much more than just money, wealth, or value. Bitcoin creates a totally independent, stateless system of economic and information exchange that is pseudonymous over the internet. This is extraordinarily revolutionary, as it creates the basis for a new economic system built on top of cryptography outside of the mortality and corruption of law. This will usher in an epochal change that happens only a few times each millennial!

Once we understand the mechanics of bitcoin we can see that it is truly digital gold. And just like gold, it will be impossible to eradicate from the world. However, there is one feature that dramatically separates bitcoin from that of other commodity monies: its non-physical nature.

The power of the non-physical nature of bitcoin eludes to what I have taken to calling The Digital Sovereign. This is the real power of the internet to affect and change society from without, as a sovereign force. It is with bitcoin that the internet has an economic mode for itself. This economic mode is what will start to radicalize the internet on a whole. When the internet sees the true power that lies within it to change the world, how it can do it with its own money, there will be nothing to stop it.

Part Two

Section two mainly covers the economic functions of bitcoin. First we will explain the mathematical and cryptographic features that make bitcoin provably better money than any money that exist today. We will go into detailed analysis of the features of good moneys, and how bitcoin exudes and embodies all of those ideals in the most scientific manner. This will allow for us to go into a detailed analysis of current system of fiat monetary exchange as a commodity itself. This commodity is the network that is money. Through treating fiat money in this way, we can directly contrast and analysis it against bitcoin.

It is from this lens that we can drive a wedge between the value of money itself as a network, from the value of the legal force embedded within that money. This is explained in the first section in regards to bonitas intresica, andvalors imporium. Once we can see all money as being only a network of exchange, than we can see how that network operates both inside and outside of the hands of governments, and their limited economic control.

When we take various economic theories such as Grehmsham’s Law, Course’s Transaction Theory, and the works of Keynes, Gesell, Hayak, and combine them with the praxis of crypto-anarchism, we are given a radical new understanding of bitcoin. It is once we understand how bitcoin functions economically, and why it is superior to other forms of money, that bitcoin shows itself to be the technological tour-de-force that it is.

Finally, taking Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction, we can see laid out before us the radical and revolutionary technological power that bitcoin will use to change the world. This is not an opinion, but a fact of economic function. This is given to us by Hayak, who offers us a glimpse into the future with liberated money. In his magnum opus “The Denationalization of Money,” he describes how a world of competitive, non-state currencies would work, and how it can answer the economic and political crises of today.

With the application of understanding bitcoin as a commodity money, we can apply classic banking practices within bitcoin to create a new form of money through transparent fractional banking. This will be the model that will allow bitcoin to become the rails of the financial system, and for bitcoin to build its own debt-based units. This will spell the doom of the contemporary banking and monetary system.

This new form of money is the bridge to the future, and is the core nexus of the ideological development that will be the next epoch of humanity: The Digital Sovereign. It will be the answer to how humans are going to solve all of the monumental and heart-wrenching issues that plague our world today. With the historical and economic ramifications of bitcoin explained from the first two sections, we can now go into the third and most important of the three sections: The political power of bitcoin.

Part Three

Bitcoin is not about money at all… it is about our core values of human-beings and what it means to be free people. Freedom is a condition and identity that is acknowledge through condition alone, and today we are not free, but we can be. Through organizing around the use of bitcoin for ALL of our economic exchange and holding of bitcoin as a form of economic resistance, we can exert true political pressure on a corrupt system through economic means. If just 1% of the world’s population would be militant enough to use bitcoin in this way, as a revolutionary tool to help people organize against the machine, it would be but a week before the system started to seize, and less than a month before it were in cataclysmic turmoil.

This is the power of revolutionary syndicalism on a transglobal scale; we can use the internet and bitcoin to organize ourselves and achieve revolutionary ends. We can organize politically, independent of one another, while having economic solitary together against our respective governments. Using bitcoin as an economic weapon against the corrupt state-capitalist machine to which we all belong, we can realistically create dramatic change in our world. Pulling from the historic traditions of anarchism, we can ultimately organize around the theory of the general strike. This will cause for a complete collapse of the State-capitalism as we know it so we may transition to a new way forward.

This is only possible if we proactively start building towards a better tomorrow now! We must do this through the formation of a revolutionary political union, and advocate from this seemingly radical stance. Through the use of the internet as an ideological tool, we will create a new class consciousness. This class consciousness will fully contain and represent the international proletariate through the ability of all people everywhere to use, interact and organize with the internet itself; and to use bitcoin as the economic vehicle to bring about change.

—

Next Section: Sovereign Violence and Legitimacy of Law

---