Infoliberalism, or how the Internet can replace the traditional political order

http://infoliberalism.info/

by TeMPOraL • 13 years ago

40 41 13 years ago

infoliberalism.info

guard-of-terra2• 13 years ago

I no longer believe that any of our actions can turn anything for the better.

Our only hope is discovering FTL and leaving this doomed planet for good.

knowaveragejoe• 13 years ago

And in the several decades until then, you will be...

saraid21612• 13 years ago

Well, the people who believe the Rapture around the corner seem to be the typical example followed.

guard-of-terra2• 13 years ago

Suffering from excruciating mental pain from within?

thebooktocome• 13 years ago

That's not much of a hope, considering FTL violates everything we know about physics...

tbeutel• 13 years ago

Please hire a copyeditor. Please.

saraid21612• 13 years ago

He's French.

dmix7• 13 years ago

I'm struggling to see how this is different (or better) than Anarcho-capitalism or other voluntary systems?

Technically the private systems within an ancap society could be implemented in a similar technology-based fashion, without having to disregard private property laws.

vbuterin• 13 years ago

The problem with property-rights based systems (namely "standard" anarchocapitalism) is that their economic model falls apart on externalities - both positive externalities (ie. public goods) which get underproduced and "steal half a cent from everyone" negative externalities like pollution, since no one has the individual incentive to do anything. Basically the only way to decentrally motivate participation in public goods production is to somehow leverage emergent properties of the social graph. Bitcoin is a crude example, using seignorage revenue from a currency to pay for core-level monetary infrastructure (ie. blockchain maintennance). Self-reinforcing trust/reputation systems are another, and that seems to be what this site is advocating.

saraid21612• 13 years ago

He actually does say it:

> The title of infoliberalism that I recently gave to this theory expresses its similarity of logic with some radical liberalisms like agorism (see the new libertarian manifesto) or anarcho-capitalism, of which it would constitute somehow an effective method of realization; with the difference, that it is rebuilt on a new foundation : instead of the postulate of private property (but while most often respecting it), infoliberalism is built on the postulate of communication freedom, which only needs proper software on the Web for developing all its logical consequences up to rebuilding the whole political order.

In other words, this still conveniently ignores the fact that we're still meatbags who live on tracts of land, so I don't know.

bcoates3• 13 years ago

This is simultaneously way, way too much and not enough at once. The 'political part' that covers justice and supposedly replaces governments and courts seems to only address fraud and deception, and uses an elaborate mixture of organizations and computer systems to solve a problem people can mostly just work out on their own...

And then it completely ignores the state's monopoly on violent retribution, which even libertarians support. AFAIK only some flavors of anarcho-primitivism reject that and this plan has way too much infrastructure for that.

spiritplumber• 13 years ago

The state does not have a monopoly on violent retribution, the state attempts to enforce its own monopoly on violent retribution and succeeds in varying degrees.

If you live in Naples or Sicily for a while, you will find out.

bcoates3• 13 years ago

Organized crime is a government and vice versa

anigbrowl2• 13 years ago

state's monopoly on violent retribution

Feuds are awesome! I love the excitement of drive-bys and the potential for involvement of by-standers or people who are sitting inside unaware that anything is even going on. What's not to like?

dmix7• 13 years ago

I'm not sure what your point is?

No monopoly is realistically absolute in economic/political/social systems due to inherent resource limitations (plus some chaos theory thrown in).

But the state still has a legal monopoly on violence.

loup-vaillant5• 13 years ago

May I ask what is wrong with the state's monopoly on violent retribution? What are the alternatives? What do you think would happen if there is not such a monopoly?

The way I see it, we don't have much of a choice. I'd rather try and ensure that the state is actually benevolent and competent. Once we guarantee that, giving it monopole over violence should be cool.

As for building a good state, I'd start by trying democracy. Not the "representative" government we have now, but something where the people would, say, directly vote for their laws. Like ancient Athens, except without slave and with gender equality.

bcoates3• 13 years ago

I don't think anything's wrong with it, and I'm not aware of any alternatives that would be worth the cost. If the OP is planning on replacing government he'll need to replace that state function within his system and he's given no hint as to how he'll possibly do that.

baddox• 13 years ago

Not all self-proclaimed libertarians support the state's monopoly on violent retribution. In fact, not all self-proclaimed libertarians support the existence of states. I'm thinking particularly of anarcho-capitalists. David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom, for example, is a seminal libertarian work that rejects the state altogether but is hardly what I would call anarcho-primitivism.

staltz• 13 years ago

I don't believe we will see something like an infoliberalist state in the next 5 or 10 years, but it's interesting that tech is increasingly making those ideas feasible.

I'm the founder of a startup building a modern forum platform with no fixed administrators. Instead, members build a network of trust by agreeing with (liking) each other's posts, and the top most trusted members become moderators. Check out http://www.iroquote.com

Also http://www.reasonwell.com is a tool for efficient online debates on policies.

It would be nice to see other similar projects related to politics. Please share some links if you know more.

spoirier• 13 years ago

Hello. As author of this theory I'm joining this discussion.

"to only address fraud and deception" Well, no, there is more than this : the power structure I described, distinguishes several categories of power that can be delegated to different people in a systematic way, so that it is an effective organizational structure to deal with different issues: - systems of qualifications (diplomas) - research on legislative issues (on environmental and other issues of right and wrong and which rules would be needed) - attribution of financial resources for public interest operations (though it could be feared too weak as initially relying on donations, for standing competition with state expenses... if we forget that states are currently running to bankruptcy) - Financial investment decisions (granting credit in someone's name) - Judgment in difficult conflicts, or where one is not directly involved in ...

"uses an elaborate mixture of organizations and computer systems to solve a problem people can mostly just work out on their own"

More precisely, it rebuilds an organizational structure through an efficient use of computer systems. The point is to address those problems that are involving too many people (and/or people whose contact would otherwise not be under hand), which for this reason could not yet be just worked out by people on their own. And do it by systematically putting together the needed information which will finally make it possible for people to apply their own free judgment and action, possibly through delegates when needed, for solving the problems.

"And then it completely ignores the state's monopoly on violent retribution" What do you mean by "ignore" ? I focus on a large category of problems and how they can be resolved independently of the presence or absence of any violent retribution system; and that this is a so important quantity of things that the effects of these "soft" solutions will finally turn out to be heavier than the ordinary use of force by democratic states (well the case of non-democratic countries will be harder but...), and will ultimately absorb that use of force in it.

Some discussions implicitly assume the old list of political theories as the only available alternatives, thus are made obsolete by this proposition of another solution. I don't feel concerned with the question "state monopoly of force or not" since my proposition develops on another level that makes the question of force somewhat irrelevant. Namely, it would first focus on handling a large range of problems that I would qualify as indeed political but without disputing or requiring interaction with the current state power, as these are political problems of a kind that does not enter the category of problems that the state ever tried to manage: too small and not formal enough problems to ever reach any bureaucrat's desk, but of still quite real and heavy importance once summed up, relativizing as anecdotal the question of what to do with state force. Need examples ?

To talk about "enforcement mechanism" : I offer one that can be effective without need of force. Because it is an enforcement on money, but money is a mere information (a social convention), which can be "forced" by the mere play of information interaction without need of any physical force. See for this the beginning of my text on money.

Infoliberalism, or how the Internet can replace the traditional political order

Related Stories