The network society
There is a fear that the revolution of information techonology leads to an Orwellian police state. Here we present an alternative scenario – that it makes the state unnecessary.
See an article about the network society and other libertarian articles. My libertarian blog (in German) may be also interesting.
A project for a stateless society
(or at least one with much less state)
based on a network
How the network works:
- The system of rules is simple: Everybody defines the rules which he accepts for himself, the penalties he accepts as just for breaking them, and the arbiters he accepts as fair;
- A black list collects records about violations of these rules established by these arbiters. It is used if such an entry is part of the accepted penalty, or if the rule breaker refuses to pay the fine or otherwise evades the penalty.
- There will be some standardization of the possible rules in form of conventions or penal codes where one can change only the penalties, but without a central instance establishing these standards and no obligation to follow them. But standards allow simple efficient search algorithms in the network.
- The system of arbitrage may be hierarchical, but only in a very different meaning of the word: There will be no ultimate highest court.
- Storing personal data in the network is only a way to improve the trust, but in no way required: One can use the network pseudonymously.
Some background about what the network gives:
- The problem of cooperation with a stranger is one which has made the state a necessity in the past. This may explain the failure of past anarchism. The network allows to solve it in a better way. Thus, the failure of past anarchism is not an argument against this proposal.
- The network may be (mis)used for criminal activities. But most of these (mis)uses lead even to benefits for the society as a whole, because the "crimes" are victimless and should not be crimes at all.
- The realities of the network will also influence the popular ideologies among the participants. We predict an increasing role of personal honour, of self-determination combined with responsibility for errors, some radicalization of the content, but with less mass murder because killing opponents is not efficient in a network which allows for pseudonyms.
- All this looks complicate. But in fact it will be easy to use even for newbies.
Some other questions: