Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Free Politics software project  (Read 4689 times)

Sylvain Poirier

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
    • Liberal theory of power
Free Politics software project
« on: September 17, 2002, 06:13:43 pm »

I imagined a new conception of political freedom, that I call the Liberal theory of power. I describe it on my web site
http://spoirier.lautre.net/trick.html
It would be based on the use of a software that does not exist yet but whose functions you can understand.

My question is: would some participants of the FSP be interested to work on its implementation inside the Free State ?

Of course there would be no need to impose this system on all members of the FSP: I think it can already work and be usefull with a few hundred members, and as a system fully compatible with general libertarian principles there should be no contradiction with the actions of the other people.
It would have the interests to facilitate the organization of the actions and the resolution of conflicts.

Thank you for your answers.
Logged

Dex Sinister

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
  • Where are we going & why are we in this handbasket
Re:Free Politics software project
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2002, 10:50:37 pm »


I imagined a new conception of political freedom, that I call the Liberal theory of power. I describe it on my web site http://spoirier.lautre.net/trick.html


If I parse the argument correctly (the english is tortured) you are proposing: a software assisted, raw democracy, enhanced with a virtual monetary system, where;
  • the denouncing of "Bill" by "Bob" would automatically impair "Bill's" ability to function in society, and
  • 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, and  
  • refusal to conform to society's conception of the current social contract would automatically result in social exclusion.  


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.

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.

Dex }:>=-
Logged
"[Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.'"

--Aristotle.

Sylvain Poirier

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
    • Liberal theory of power
Re:Free Politics software project
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2002, 05:30:39 am »

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).
Quote
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...).

Quote
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 ?
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5684
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Free Politics software project
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2002, 01:18:01 pm »

It's an interesting idea but I also wonder why anyone would want to sign up for such an all-encompassing system.  After all, no person is completely honest and good, and probably few people are completely cut-throat, untrustworthy, and evil.  It seems to me that "denouncing" a person or business should take place only within the context of a specific contracted action that was not performed - you should not be able to simply tag a person as "untrustworthy."  And isn't this what credit reporting agencies already do now?  Perhaps I am unclear on the mechanics and purpose of this new system.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Sylvain Poirier

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
    • Liberal theory of power
Re:Free Politics software project
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2002, 06:36:06 pm »

It seems to me that "denouncing" a person or business should take place only within the context of a specific contracted action that was not performed - you should not be able to simply tag a person as "untrustworthy."


Okay. Let us say it is a good approximation of this question.
After, other details could be added:
One could denounce other deeds at the border of honesty, like writing deliberately unclear contracts hiding potential problems, developping some twisted commercial tactics with ads at the border of lies, dealing drugs,...
Quote
And isn't this what credit reporting agencies already do now?


Well, I do not know how are the credit reporting agencies now (sorry, I am just a mathematician and not a businessman).
But I would answer that I think there should not be any need for an agency, as this work could naturally and efficiently be done by the participation of all people through some automatic Internet protocoles and databases, plus maybe the work of some independant specialists or small teams of them. (How big is an agency now ?).
Collecting automatically the opinions of all people brings a more complete knowledge than asking some people individually some particular questions. And the problem of the division of information between competing agencies disappears if there is no more need of an agency.

The same remark also applies to the banks: it should be possible to define a much more competitive financial system with no need of banks as big and specific organizations.
Quote
Perhaps I am unclear on the mechanics and purpose of this new system.


Well, the purpose, as you remarked, is to encompass everything, to solve many problems (examples of which I could often experience in a way or another: I observed that many markets are so far from their natural equilibrum but offer and demand will have no chance to meet unless we build this new system), produce many kinds of advantages to the polulation with the smallest efforts, to decentralize everything so that no monopole can impose itself (unless of course if it is because it is formed of the generous people which all collaborate to do the best services for the smallest prices), to facilitate many projects, and eventually to compete with the welfare state in its very reasons of being for so many people (just by adapting the social contract to other mentalities... until this forces them to confront their misconceptions to reality and to become more reasonable).

I think of more examples of applications, but instead of overloading this forum I add them to my site now.
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Free Politics software project
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2002, 09:26:59 am »


I imagined a new conception of political freedom, that I call the Liberal theory of power. I describe it on my web site
http://spoirier.lautre.net/trick.html
It would be based on the use of a software that does not exist yet but whose functions you can understand.

My question is: would some participants of the FSP be interested to work on its implementation inside the Free State ?

Of course there would be no need to impose this system on all members of the FSP: I think it can already work and be usefull with a few hundred members, and as a system fully compatible with general libertarian principles there should be no contradiction with the actions of the other people.
It would have the interests to facilitate the organization of the actions and the resolution of conflicts.

Thank you for your answers.



What's the point?
You're quietly going mad out there, aren't you?

Listen to this:
Quote

here is its mode of action in the simplest case: To fight against the drug traffic, it is not always necessary to run after the dealers. It is enough for the investigators representing the largest part of the people to enter the virtual world and to examine the monetary operations which are recorded there, in the search of those of payment of drug. The identity of the dealers once thus found, it is enough to cancel the recognition of the monetary account of each dealer, and to put on him discredit. Then, this dealer will not have gained anything of its sales, and will not be able anymore to buy something then with his electronic money account in a store than if he presented a bill of Monopoly: its nullity is immediately identifiable, the merchant knowing that if he accepted it in spite of that it would not be recognised as money by the population who charged the investigator for this task, and the same recursively for the minority who did not charge him.


Does that sound like FREEDOM or GENERAL LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES?

If you want someone to program that, hey, I would do it, if I thought it was going to be used a lot, because I would stick in backdoor logic and take certain advantage of the system.  So would any other programmer.
Logged

rodschmidt

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 362
Re:Free Politics software project
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2004, 02:28:53 am »

I think I would call it

   "reputationware"

A denunciation could be like a vote, where it's just up or down as a matter of opinion not justified by anything.  

Or it could be a complaint supported (or not!) by facts, in the style of a civil lawsuit.

Ah yes, drugdealersandcriminals.  I was going to mention, when I was commenting on that Socialist's essay about how capitalism causes warandcrime, that my high school biology teacher several times mentioned homosexualityandmasturbation.  If I had been bolder I would have drawn the class's attention to his linguistic manipulation by talking about criminalsanddemocrats.
Logged

antayla

  • Guest
Re:Free Politics software project
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2004, 03:06:18 am »

I will be working on "reputationware" sometime in the future, but only when I have built a business network large enough to require that kinda software... maybe :P
Logged

Sylvain Poirier

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
    • Liberal theory of power
Re:Free Politics software project
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2004, 05:27:24 am »

I finally deleted all mention of drug because the aim is not to speak about drug but about general methods. For example it is a possible method against fraud, corruption and the like. Including the problem of trustworthiness of online transactions like what was done (or tried) by EBay against the false sellers who try to get money for selling things that they never send.

Now, my project progressed. I have a plan of how to start, described in http://spoirier.lautre.net/trustedforum.html
It will be a free software in PHP for online messaging by a system of forums, that would solve the spam problem.

A few programmers started working on it. Apart from programming, the problem is to make a good mathematical model of what there is to do and a workable algorithm to make these operation (in particular the money system). I think I can manage.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

anything