Uhm, why the hell would I pay a fine if I’m innocent, just because someone is accusing me? If I’m found to be guilty, I should pay back everything plus a fine though.

And about the first rule there, who will be giving the money if the person who owns money doesn't have any anymore?

Bad phrasing:

Bankrupted person will defer all payments to creditors and wronged parties.

Who is allowed to vote?

I personally think the guilty party should be required to give up their favourite goat to the victims.

What if some people ganged up and accused an innocent on an obscure matter? The way the first post is written sounds like guilty till paid otherwise....

Who's gonna be enforcing these kangaroo courts? And how would you propose that enforcement to be achieved with a money system that is designed for anonymity and no control of already performed transactions?

There's no way to enforce said laws, given the nature of Bitcoin. How do you prevent the person from using other addresses? Other email accounts? Other IPs? Without a face-to-face system, or extensive tracking resources, I can't see a way that the rules will do anything but create friction in the system that would slow down any resolutions that would have happened anyway.

These laws are meaningless if you can not enforce them. You'd be hard pressed to bring a court case against an anonymous internet person. (Yes, anonymity is difficult, but that's a different discussion.) This is why the idea of web-of-trust etc. has been put to use in the Bitcoin community. If you can not rely on conventional legal means to enforce fair play, you come up with something else. Here, reputation is king. What is being discussed now is a way to make that reputation contingent on fair behaviour without descending into mob rule. I think it's a matter that has to be resolved. The solution doesn't have to be a full-blown legal system in the sense anyone living in a western society thinks of it. In fact, it shouldn't be that complex, it needs to be readily understandable by anyone. We just need to find common ground for dispute resolution so everyone can have an expectation of being treated fairly by the Bitcoin community at large.

But isn't the point of a law system to enforce the rules upon those who don't want to follow them? To prevent behaviors that the majority (or at least those in power) deem unacceptable? To have an opt-in law system is, frankly, silly as the only people that will pay attention to it are the ones who will follow it. Without the ability to extend the reach of the law system to those who don't want to be a part of it, the law system just creates busywork, friction, and annoyances.