the denouncing of "Bill" by "Bob" would automatically impair "Bill's" ability to function in society
Not in an arbitrary way that would allow diffamation:
- The person denounced would only have problems to relate with the people who indirectly decided to trust the denounciator, because they chose to, and in a way according to the content of the complaint.
- This would take full effect only if Bill has no defender also indirectly trusted by them.
- The denounciator himself takes the risk to be excluded if his accusation appears to be false.
A decision by the majority to, say, confiscate the assets of "X" population (drug dealers, criminals, generally unpopular people) could be accomplished at the push of a button
Is it not a good thing to use such an efficient and clean method against drug dealers and criminals ?
(Well if you prefer, do not speak about soft drugs but only hard ones.)
Did not I read in this forum that many libertarians are against hard drugs dealing with the only difference that they consider the classical brute force approach of law against it as a bad and unefficient method.
Here you cannot obtain a majority's agreement for a confiscation by spreading disinformation, but:
- you have to convince also the representants, who will be serious and honest people dedicated to studying such questions, and
- to arrange that the people you accuse would have no more defenders (except maybe some people considered by ALL the others as unreasonable or unfair concerning this question). If you cannot arrange this, you may have troubles yourself according to the situation.
refusal to conform to society's conception of the current social contract would automatically result in social exclusion.
The libertarian principles says that no one is obliged to relate with someone he does not want to. And if you cannot oblige one person to have an unwanted relation, you can neither oblige many people to have a relation with someone when they form a majority, if they don't want to.
Don't you think this is but the pure logical extension of libertarian principles ?
No one will be obliged to trust what the other members say, however.
And there is no necessity for everyone to have precisely the same social contract, but there can be a variety of options in it such that those who choose different option may have no problems, just knowing about their difference and choosing not to have business with each other.
Except for matters such as pollution (and others below). But you see that it is a serious problem, that the climate change produces an increase in the frequency of natural disasters (at least in Europe).
Further, it appears that if one person praises "Bill" while another denounces him, an automatic conflict is created between these two individuals that must necessarially result in them either attempting to agree, or to denounce each other.
There are two other possibilities: if you are not sure of your own opinion, you can either cancel your declaration (saying you have no more opinion) or invite an authority recognized by both parts to investigate and conclude about Bill (in which case it is no more your personal opinion if you have other ideas, and the contradiction is resolved).
Or a certain diversity of opinions about someone can persist without trouble as far as it has no importance (that is, as far as Bill does not play a key role in something, is not given certain powers...).
IMO, as described, I see few positive benefits to joining such an association if it were small and voluntary, and a Hobsian war of all against all with the potential for vast abuses in a large-scale implementation.
I think that once it would exist as a small and voluntary association:
- the experiences and debates that would happen there could result in the development of social contracts and functions of the software aimed to reduce the risks that wars and abuses happened in a larger scale.
- The risk would be tempered by the honesty of the representants: contrary to the present political system in which the power is transmitted according to the impression made by vague programs and slogans, here it would be according to the estimation of the honesty (among other qualities) of the people that one knows.
Therefore it is very likely that a majority of people choose people with humane qualities of honesty and understanding to represent them (This can be the fruit of experience after tries and corrections).
So these honest representants would be likely to try to understand each other, discuss seriously, cooperate and not make abuses.
It is possible that when a disagreement persists, one chooses the status quo, that is, behaves in a classical libertarian way (you can write this in your social contract if you want).
You can also write in your social contrat that you do not allow your own representants to get fortunes from their power, so that nobody motivated by power abuse and unfair wealth would try to convince you to give him your power.
As concerns a possible large-scale implementation:
One can also speak about subjects like the medicines industry that forbids very many third world people to cure themselves to survive because they do not have the money to pay for the huge price imposed by these industries, whereas without these patents regulation it would be possible to produce much cheaper medicines.
Would not it be an urgent necessity to stop these disasters by allowing a more flexible global order to develop, so that the people would be able to resist against any such cartel of industries ready to let hudge catastrophies happen for just a small increase of their already big profit.
And don't say that these industries deserve their profit: they have business techniques to stop potiential competitors, that have nothing to do their real creativity (their creativity is not their own anyway but the one of the people they employ with unfair management techniques), and little to do with law enforcement (well I do not know, do you know more about this ?).
One can say comparable things about Microsoft, the RIAA etc.
Should I add these points (or make the corrections) to my site ?