Good law tracks common sense. It matches expectation against the reality of how much power we give to cooperate.

In the United States, the Constitution captures this deal among citizens, and judges are expected to override errors where governance misses the mark, filling gaps where rational people wouldn’t consent to limit themselves. Unconstitutional acts ‘never were law in the first place’, as they void the social contract.

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Norton v. Shelby Count

In the beginning was the word, and law has the final word, speaking for ourselves.

These concepts are nothing new. They schell around natural law, the primordial stew of rights. Natural law is objective and moral--people can speak freely or not, and this power is understood in terms of what makes us happy. Where governance messes with our well-being, it must be discarded.

Contracts are guided by these principles, and fairness reigns supreme. Being governed by your bargain is as much a part of being a good citizen as a business partner. Predictability allows us to plan for the future and grow. As we can eliminate misunderstanding or muddy enforcement, a higher form of agreement is reached. And this is increasingly clear in smart contracts.

Smart contracts run value exactly as programmed. They record intent immutably. Interference is next to impossible. Though cases arise where code diverts expectations, by software bug or blockchain fork, it is reasonable to assume parties to a smart contract agree to the code they sign under private key.

Smart contracts are fundamentally fair.

The natural law tradition resonates deeply here. Relying on code to enforce agreements, people can truly associate, unburdened by origin, race or gender. Anyone can coordinate via DAO, and opt into how much of their identity or trust they give to each other and the public. The legal system simply cannot provide this level of personal control, as inevitably, privacy is breached, and the meeting-of-the-minds, lost in translation.

State-derived law therefore has less authority to enforce agreements than code. It is riskier to use, more likely to pervert intentions, and cannot avoid its own prejudices, whether on jingoism or agent concerns. While legal systems may account for externalities caused by smart contracts, their role will be just that, secondary.

But where, oh where, do smart contracts get authority? From people, no doubt, just like the State. To the extent governments have power to manage our lives and promises, based on natural law, distributed systems form a more perfect (P2P) union and are legitimate institutions.

Code is law, naturally.