
Infoliberalism, or how the Internet can replace the traditional political order - TeMPOraL
http://infoliberalism.info/
======
bcoates
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.

~~~
loup-vaillant
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.

~~~
bcoates
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.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Oops, my bad. I assumed the negative connotation in "monopoly on violence" was
intended. Maybe we should talk about the "enforcement mechanisms" or
something?

------
staltz
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.

------
dmix
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.

~~~
saraid216
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.

------
tbeutel
Please hire a copyeditor. Please.

~~~
saraid216
He's French.

------
guard-of-terra
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
And in the several decades until then, you will be...

~~~
guard-of-terra
Suffering from excruciating mental pain from within?

------
spoirier
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.

