A new solution: infoliberalism

[spoirier]

In reply to several other threads of this forum here and there I'm opening this one to discuss my political ideas.

Like many other INTPs, I feel close to libertarian ideas, so I voted libertarian to that poll. Indeed this is what my ideas can be found closest to among the given options, but more precisely I develop my own thought.

It's very hard to sum up my ideas. This is one of the main problems I'm facing: usually people aren't ready to learn, discuss and spread an idea that is not already famous but requires to think and argue more than 20 minutes to figure out how it can hold.
So for the contents, please visit my web pages here.

To give just a few hints on the context (not long enough to be a summary):
I rather agree with most libertarian principles. But the point is that a political & economic system is not just about moral principles, but also about practical solutions to make them real and resolve all kinds of real-world tricky issues that may arise in real life.

So, one big problem I see with traditional libertarian ideas is that they seem more or less reduced to a set of abstract moral principles but no clue of how to make them real. Do they expect to win an election somewhere ? Don't rely on this, it won't work. OK the Free State Project seemed to work (I did not follow it in details). But this only concerns NH, not the rest of the world, and NH remains part of the US and under the dependence of the fed.
Also, having principles is fine but it is not always clear how they can relate to real cases. I just saw the justiceharvard.org episode on libertarianism and was so disappointed to see libertarians trying to defend principles while not noticing that the specific example considered was flawed. Namely, I'd agree that someone's wealth should be respected in principle, provided it was earned in a fair way. The problem is, in which case is it fair ? They mentioned Bill Gates, reputed as the richest man in the world, whose fortune (they assumed) was earned in a fair way because he respected the rules of market. The problem is that he dreadfully biased these rules in practice, with abuse of dominant position, exclusivity contracts, buying competitors to get rid of them, biased advertising... So, my view is that the fairness question is often a very tough one, that can't properly be handled by just mentioning principles or market rules (these work well in many cases but can have huge biases in other cases).

Here is another problematic case : the problem here is not only that traditional libertarian concepts provide no proprer solution either, but, even worse, I observed that so many libertarian people are ideologically tempted to deny the existence of the problem altogether. As if God/Smith's Invisible Hand necessarily had to create everything in the universe including the physics of climate, precisely so that traditional libertarian solutions must remain infallible for eternity, and any opposed claim to this must be dismissed as a mere anti-libertarian plot.

Another problem (or another aspect of the same problem) is that libertarian ideas are logically incomplete. They let some big issues unresolved. Not only the problem of how to switch the world into a libertarian one in practice, but how it could work once done: how to solve conflicts, to provide justice and make it cheap, wise and fair ? Not only how to judge and reach a conclusion, but how to enforce it ? How to make it so easy and flexible that it can also costlessly address a large number of everyday life troubles ? What money to use ? How to handle the trust problem and avoid swindles of all kinds, to stop having to waste your life doubting and worrying every time you make a step ?
I already mentioned my concept for money in the thread about central banks.

Examples could be multiplied. I'll rather stop for now, and let you ask your questions after you'll see my proposals on my site.

In contrast with this, what I offer is an integrated theory of how everything can be put together to form a consistent solution, taking account of the high complexity of real situations.

Once the solution theoretically defined (which I did define for the most of it), the implementation would be relatively very easy. All we need is to get a web programmers team to make a new software according to some specifications.

For years I expected to find some. Unfortunately, I was always disappointed. I'm just a bit too weak and not enough wealthy to manage all this myself.

Years ago I had presented many times my political concept to student groups. Usually after 1-2 hours of presentation and debate, all went out convinced that it was the right solution to change the world. They may be thousands convinced this way in total.
The only problem is that they were not programmers, they never contacted me again to wonder if they might do anything to help, nor cared explaining what they understood to anyone else.
Because it can't be convincingly summed up.

Since years I never saw anyone raise any more argument against my plans after the few objections list I once got and I answered in my site long ago, while on the other hand I convinced so many. Thus, it would be much more popular than libertarian ideas themselves once understood by people. The only problem is, nobody cares to do this work of understanding, as long as the idea is "not real"...
People are so lazy to think.
Many libertarians are INTPs but in libertarian forums they aren't ready to think either, as their convictions were fixed once for all. They prefer to stick to their traditional waste of energy in vain fanaticism for abstract ideals and agreement together, rather than consider any non-traditional effective solution. Some even rejected me as not true libertarian in their sense. Some libertarians who examined my ideas were convinced, but they seemingly never cared to tell it to anybody else either. Don't know why.

Web developers are usually conformist too, not ready to understand a new idea. The few ones who understood it were also convinced by its importance, but they did not have the means to make it nor cared to spread the idea either...

Why keep wasting energy reexplaining the same things to thousands of people and convincing them all, if they will keep never doing anything of it once they are convinced, and leave me alone desperately trying to restart explaining to others who never heard of it that I'm not crazy ?
I don't need to convince many people. All is needed is to have the software done. If only it was done, no more energy would be required to convince anyone. It would just be a reality.

If I had known, I'd maybe committed suicide long ago. Because I've always remained single and unable to bear this (I'm 35). I also found a concept of solution for online dating, with a plan (not yet fully written) of a much better online dating system than all existing dating sites, that could be integrated with this software project (before the political and monetary solution, I think). But, while the business of online dating gets huge profits exploiting the sentimental misery of the many, nobody cares either...
It could all have been done since years if I was feeling better or if some people cared (one point providing a solution to the other). But now, maybe in my next reincarnation...

I'm now completely desperate of this world and of mankind, whose principles are to reject any effort to think something unusual because it's not a democratic or lovely enough practice in their taste, and they don't need it to pass an exam, while it would be so relatively easy to change everything. Maybe here will finally be the right people ?

[Reverse Transcriptase]

uh yeah, it's really weird that you gave a link to more info about it. Usually people at least give a summary?

I am extremely in the anti-wall-of-text camp. And I was not able to skim your thing at all- suddenly webpage building is being mentioned, and I have no idea what the reason is!

Your task- and this is for your own good- write your philosophy in 5 sentences or less.

edit//
okay, this paragraph from your website is a start:

The development of new Web functions would make it possible to build logically a new kind of political order of the society, as ideal as possible, by a flexible and effective method to ensure the respect of the general interest by efficiently preventing frauds and abuse. Independent of any geographical division, based on the generalized principle of free adhesion, self-implementable by the only "force" of software usefulness and well-informed freedom, this new network of multiple and decentralized powers would make obsolete the traditional designs of State and powers.

Sorry if I sound mean... I'm trying to inspire you to do better.

[spoirier]

Yes that try of a summary was on my web site. Thanks for adding it here to give a quick idea. Despite the deep logic and unity of my project, there are so many things worth saying, that it is hard to make a choice what to start with. You cannot require a physicist to make the effort to explain quantum physics in 5 minutes to someone who knows no math or physics either .

[Kuu]

I'm all for using the internet as a tool for new political order... but I see several issues with your methods

1) How would one prevent an individual from utilizing several login accounts?
2) If there is no use of force to sustain the political order, how does one resolve the issue of organized crime?
3) How does one stop people from coercion or abuse of trust in real life: I might threaten people to provide their trust upon me; or perhaps utilize a position of influence to charm vast amounts of people with sweet talking... even if there is open information available to all, some people will still choose to ignore it and believe me... How do you keep this from becoming a popularity contest?
4) How distributed must the database be so that there is no possibility of collusion?
5) If indeed it was adequately distributed, would power then not fall on the internet service providers? One could entirely block complete segments of the population...
6) Most important of all: how does one transition from our current system to that system, if it is at all possible to do so?

[spoirier]

1) Nothing prevents this, but the logic of the system is defined in such a way that for all the core purposes it would be pointless, unlike if for example there were votes; I don't exclude votes for specific purposes that would need it, but most issues will be handled in a way that does not depend on numbers, i.e. where 10 users have the same effective weight as 1, and could hardly do anything more than 1 user could do.

2 a) With the new money system, all operations can be traced and all monetary accounts of people known to be criminals could easily be blocked.
Of course criminals could simply try to drop out, avoid any financial transaction with the honest world, thus give up their ability to buy anything in an honest shop, only do their business with and buy their food from peer criminals using gold money (not being able to use their parallel copy of the new money system because it is based on P2P trust and criminals will have more troubles than honest people to let their fortunes rely on trust between them). But they'd have a hard time doing so.

2 b) I didn't say the police would disappear. They could continue their job more or less as usual, there would just be some transition time, most probably an election, where the political order they depend on will be replaced by the new one.

3 a) All users were warned before using the system that making a trust declaration based on threat means a serious trouble. To name it in conventional legal terms, forcing someone to declare trust to oneself by threat, will be considered a criminal offense. In practice, technical protections can be developed against this. For instance, since trust declarations must anyway be a wise, long-term, well-thought decision based on knowing someone well, the system could systematically wait for months of a confirmed trust declaration,
before taking it into account. Meanwhile, the user would just need to have a piece of time to warn others about the problem, so that an investigation can occur and the declaration won't become valid at the end.

3 b) The system's guidelines clearly state that you must not make a standard trust declaration to someone based on your agreement with his ideas and speeches that you heard from the media or conferences, but only based on your long-term personal familiarity with this person; or you can declare your agreement with his ideas as a specific declaration of ideological agreement, not to be mistaken with a personal trust. Anyway you know that if you disobey these guidelines and other people know that (or know the dishonesty of this speaker you're declaring trust to), you'll lose the trust that the rest of the world granted to you.

4) I imagine the database with one's trust declaration stored in his personal account where he registered. This requires him to trust his host. Anyone can install another peer host to provide this hosting service to other users, and anyone is free to move one's account to another host if one does not trust enough one's current host. Users of different hosts can interact together and declare trust to each other transparently, disregarding the division of the data between hosts. I imagine many thousands of hosts with many thousands of accounts each.
For the money system, I imagine that for security reasons the monetary databases will be separate from the trust databases, to be accessed through a double security check (normal account + money account), and for computational purposes it will be a bit more centralized (hundreds or thousands of peer hosts with more accounts each) though based on the same decentralization principles; trust to the monetary servers can be checked by the independent non-monetary trust system servers.

5) The trust and power system is not an arbitrary decision by the system providers to decide who has the power, but it is supposed to be determined by specific logical rules connecting users through their declarations; if the outcome of the computation disrespects these rules, this may turn out to be discovered by users, through some failure for the system to lead to the expected outcome (well, I did not precisely study this point, it may need more work) and it would be a big scandal, and all users would move their accounts away. All they need for this is a reliable copy of their data "to not forget anything" to restore to the new host.

6) In the first step, you just need to focus on developing the software. The first versions, released open-source, not including any political nor monetary functions yet but preparing the proper infrastructure that will make them easy to add to the next update, can already be widely popular as a replacement for email and more, and thus do not pose a political transition problem in themselves.

In the next step, with the upgrade to political functions, the new political order will gradually develop and sustain itself in the cyberspace, hidden in the users'privacies, as a way by which users connect together online, disregarding where in the world they may physically be. This will not require any support nor even legal existence as a political order in the eyes of the old powers, will not require to visibly break any old law, and thus will avoid any effective technical conflict with the states.

In the last step, it will become self-evident as a result of the parallel development of the new power structures, that the old powers are a mere obsolete comedy and the new powers are the effective and legitimate ones. Finalizing this observation into a victory at the next elections, will in most cases (i.e. in the case of democratic countries) turn out to be a relatively easy formality.

[spoirier]

In reply to questions in the Central Banks thread:

You always have to take into account the thought that a majority of people, for whatever reasons, will likely be against a system such as this. An appropriate response to such resistance needs to be built into the plan.

I don't mean to force anyone into the new system. People will freely join if they choose to. If they don't, they can keep out, while others can join and use it for their online business with other people who joined too, until others will see by facts the advantage of doing so. Or do you fear a majority won't tolerate the others'use of it and will try to repress it ?

It is all built off of trust... What if no one trusts me, because I do not talk to them? What if I have an extreme form of introversion, perhaps even a form of autism? And my family is dead/doesn't like me?

No one ? Not even your own parents would be able to know if you're honest ? Well the point here is that my theory leads you to realize that there are some cases that would possibly stay impossible to manage in ANY system, not even the current one, so that we don't lose anything by the change. To be trusted, what for, and for what fear ? You only need to be trusted if you require something where others need to trust you. Without being trusted, you may find no way to borrow money, but you can do your shopping as long as you have a positive monetary balance. This is nothing else than what already happens in the current system.

If you're introverted, well, others can notice it and that it can explain why you did not receive full trust, is it a reason to suspect you to possibly cheat or do wrong things ? Are there other people that appear introverted like you who indeed do wrong things, and how can anyone know if you are not like them ? It is still possible to find a way out through dedicated organizations with/for people like you, that you can join for some time, that may assess you and find if they can declare trust to you.

I'd even think it will be easier in the new system than in the old one. In the old system you need to convince ever and ever again people to trust you every time you need something from them, because they don't know you. In the new system you only need one person in your life to know you're honest.

Who solves disputes over what is an equal payment...it seems like in your plan, no one. Very libertarian, very impractical. There would be blood.

...oh, okay, I see, you've covered that (somewhat?): http://spoirier.lautre.net/trustedforum.html ...still, that would be...difficult...to maintain.

Disputes would mainly happen online, so there would be no blood. Still well maybe some disagreements may persist. Yes more precisely the logical procedure to handle fair payment disputes is the same as the concept of "parties" presented there, animated by online arguments between involved people as mentioned there. The remaining problem would be whether this procedure would converge or not. Somehow it logically has to, but humanly I understand some may be pissed off. If disagreement persists with no clear winner, a possible further option would be to appeal to something like judges trusted by both parties through the power system. Yes it may turn out to be quite tricky sometimes but still very logical. What, "difficult to maintain" ? Yes it will be quite a work to design the software specifications at first, and see whether the procedures need modifications out of experience. But once the system designed and implemented, it would be done once for all. Then most disputes, even tough, won't need to be individually "maintained" as they just go on and it is the participants'business to argue and manage their situation.

Who would impliment this? Would they not have the potential to take it over/control it in a way that would be against everything you hope this plan would accomplish?

Free, open-source software. If someone makes a wrong version, someone else needs to make the right one in parallel, and it will be up to people to register to the right version. The wise will do so for their own interest. Too bad for the others.

You talk about physical production in your examples (coats, boots, etc)...what if I am a research scientist and I produce papers and non-application research on an obscure enzyme for a university, and I would like to get in return food, shelter, appliances, a cat, cat food, a trip to Costa Rica, membership at a few museums, various books, and whatever else I would normally buy with the money I would earn from the university. How do you deal with such (1) abstract, and/or (2) complicated transactions?

I don't destroy any possibility. I mentioned concrete things as examples, to mean that it is about "real values" in a very general sense, just as a way to mention that a solution must be found to escape the risk of empty meaning of "the value of a dollar" when devaluation and inflation would occur (the stability question is the other part of the problem that I did not complete yet). The point is that my system contains the "payment operation" in the usual sense, as well as new more subtle transactions (including a more flexible version of escrow), and does not care about the purpose why people choose to pay to each other. So payments for whatever purpose that was possible before, remain possible as well.

I love how it is all math based...but you would have a heck of a time trying to explain the system to the populace, and the politicians (assuming you wanted to explain it to them).

I don't need to explain to the politicians, as the implementation won't be their job; the populace watch TV with no need to understand the Maxwell equations of electromagnetic waves by which things are broadcasted, and they can use a computer with no need to understand the details of the OS that make it work. My mother had a hard time learning how to use a computer, but she had to do it because she knew it offered so many possibilities.

How would this work globally...how would this work if only, say, 1/4 of the world population was incorperated into this system? How would they interact with the other 3/4, who are all divided under different systems of government and economics?

If 1/4 of the world population had joined this system, they could already make wonderful business together without caring much of the rest of the world. To be able to go to the nearby shop from an income they got in the new money, they could do the exchange, getting the traditional money they need from the nearest peer users that have some to convert into the new system. Such a trade may be illegal wrt financial&fiscal regulations, but... the political part would not raise this issue and could suffice to win elections and thus change the law before such troubles occur in the large scale.

[Chronomar]

About the "you don't have to explain how TVs work for people to watch TV" line of thought...
while that makes a good deal of sense, there is a small catch.

When faced with new technologies, ideas, systems (or, in your case, all three)...the arbitrarily labeled "smart" people will want a detailed explanation (and do not think for a minute that some of them won't disagree), and the "mass populace" will still want a placating explanation. Many people were scared that new technologies such as televisions or phones or satellites or microwaves could some how hurt them, and could only accept them (somewhat) after being given explanations of their functioning.

Everyone in a system, in which the majority do not understand (which might not have been your intention, but that's how I read it), could either lead to a very interesting utopia or dystopia.

If you cannot make your plan work, at least write a fiction novel about it...or pass the idea on to a writer. That way, your idea, even if it was not implemented right now, could last in the minds of those who read about it and some day attain practical influence, or at least stand as a standard for practical system to emulate.

...

I actually think that the isolationist response to partial implementation just might work. In my mind it does anyway...you know, you should really go find an INTJ to read this. They might be less vague than I am.

[spoirier]

Of course, as I already said, I could convince a near-unanimity nearly every time I made a serious presentation and debate with a students group. So the problem is not explaining or debating.
It rather seems that the obstacle I faced until now as for the popularity of my ideas (which is not needed in itself at this step, I just need programmers), is that most people are too lazy to care understanding and debating when they are not in a situation that requires them to. I can't really tell what is in their head, as precisely I get no news from anybody.
But I guess they did not do anything about it for a variable mixture of the following reasons:
- It is "not real" yet, it is not in their current business to do so;
- They are not programmers themselves, so they are "not concerned"
- They may have thoughts why they are not yet convinced at first, just like the questions you expressed, and just as usually happened in the debates I had faced. But, as they are not in a context that drives them to the debate, they did not come to express their arguments. Maybe they just passively trusted their first impression and did not expect that answers could be given; in other words, they did not have the impression it was worth debating. Just a passive behaviour.
- It would be too hard for them to tell others about it because it can't be summed up, and an introduction the normal size of a buzz, would be too short to explain itself and seem credible.

So I think that the popularity would become much better, just if facts would force people to think about it.

Just like in the case of Google Wave, that attracted enthousiasm from many million people. In itself I don't think it had any better convincing ability than my own plans. Indeed, both concepts are quite similar, innovative and unusual with respect to the way internet is currently used.
The only source of the difference why millions of people rushed to register to Wave and such a buzz was made about it, while nobody mentioned my ideas, has nothing to do with easiness to understand, innovative character, necessity to change one's habbits of thinking, convincing power of the arguments.
It was only a matter of Google's reputation, and the fact that a lot of work had been done on Wave, and impressive screenshots and videos could be made, so that people had an easy impression that it was "real" and "serious" and thus worth investing time to understand it.

I don't believe a fiction novel can help. Myself I usually don't like fiction.
I think it would be a waste of time, at the expense of the real work of getting a programmers team to implement the system in reality.
I don't think a fiction can be any simpler nor more pleasant to read that a purely rational explanation.
I even think it would seem harder to get into, with weaker convincing power, and would be completely overcompeted by so many inconsistent dreams as science-fiction is filled with (like transhumanism ). The details of my solution and why it would work cannot be properly expressed in fictional terms. Because fictions naturally have to only deal with a little group of people following a unique story. But my ideas are about the details of how millions or billions of people can connect together, and how can it be that, among the zillions of possible ways by which each person can be lead by computers to contact or interact with another person, some specific algorithms followed by the software will lead to an optimized set of consequences in most cases. No fictional story can ever express such a conclusion, but would just seem like an inconsistent dream among so many others.
I think the only understandable and convincing explanation for many, and/or motivation to think further, will be the factual observation of the benefits of its use, much better than any work of the imagination.

Sorry I could not understand you last sentences (maybe because I'm not native English speaker ?). What do you mean by "the isolationist response to partial implementation" ? You probably mean I should register and post a message there in hope someone will be interested to make it ?

[spoirier]

Now I just registered and posted a message to that intj forum, computers section, but I had troubles with their antispam system that does not allow for links, and this annoyed me especially because my plans would have resolved the spam problem too.

[spoirier]

Moreover, I'm really fed up with all the "you should" seemingly well-intended advices.
I dedicated a large part of my life designing that plan, and it's not for myself but to help the world go better. If I lived for myself, well, I'd have rather killed myself long ago.
It's not MY problem. It is everyone's problem.
Therefore I can't see any reason why I should be the one to bother following such or such advices, and why it should be considered my failure if nothing happens of it does not work.
I dedicated years of thoughts to design this plan, my life has been crushed by this world in a way I can't sum up, I wasted a lot of time convincing thousands of people (that this project is the right one and doable) for nothing, searching for programmers and getting stalled or fooled by their incompetence, dishonesty, foolishness or irresponsibility (ever and ever again a different unexpectable trouble). After this, people usually assume that if my plans were not implemented, it would be my failure.
Why the hell should it rather be considered my failure than anyone else's failure ?
Once someone wrote me back 1 year after we met, to ask me: did you find a programmer ?
I replied: no, and you ?
Indeed...
I already succeed to design the right plan, and dedicated a huge lot of energy for it. And I don't know anyone who did the hundredth of it.
Too much is too much.
If someone has ideas what needs to be done to get some programmers to make it, please don't advise me. Please advise yourself as to how you can manage to get programmers to make it. I'll still be there if you need furher brainstorming, arguments or explanations on the depth of the subject. Thanks a lot.

But if nobody will do it, then, I'll happily suicide in order for the world to keep the troubles and sufferings that it loves and deserves. Thanks for your understanding.

[Anthile]

You say on your website, your system provides a better political but yet you don't make any clear argumentations why. From what I read, your system makes things more complicated and keeps away people who are not internet savvy or don't have a computer.
Not to mention that everything-via-internet makes it incredibly attractive for hackers and other abuse.

Also, as far as I am concerned, most governments already work on implementing online platforms for similar stuff.

[spoirier]

It is indeed hard to figure out and explain why as long as it is not already done yet. It requires a lot of rational imagination (harder than reading science fiction), which many people are not used to. Did you really care examine the different pages of details ?
After this, give me any example of a conflict or trouble that may occur in the world that is a matter of human action or information where more than one person is involved, and I'll try to explain how I think it would be handled in my system. By the way, I already mentioned some examples at the bottom of that page.
My system does not make things complicated, it just adapts to the complexity of the world, and moreover the main part of the solution's complexity will be managed by computers. For users, it even simplifies it a lot. Did you forget that this world (constitution, law, administration&tax system) is already overly complex (I read this remark in Joe Stack's note) ? It would be quite simplified with my solution.
It indeeds starts with computers. It's not to hurt those not fond of computers, but to start with progressing where progression is possible. Same remark as with the police: the lack of mention to something, does not mean to destroy it or the like.
From now to its wide use, much progress can be done in technology and everything, and many people can consider other cases and provide relevant solutions.
Your remark about hackers seems just too vague to be meaningful. My project includes some specific ideas for security, and if it's not enough, other security specialists can work on it.
By the way, do you remember the report how the Chinese govt managed to hack Google's servers ?
I did not keep the link, but it was: new technologies, old methods. Spies were sent to work among Google's staff there.
In itself, computer security can be made reliable.

[spoirier]

Indeed, most of the troubles I faced in my life would have been resolved or would be much easier to resolve if Infoliberalism had been implemented. The same with many of the troubles I heard other people tell about of their own lives, or that I heard in the news (except of course for most of earthquakes, tsunamis, accidents, illnesses, trisomy and a few more similar things...).

The list and diversity of examples would be nearly infinite. Here are a few ones I faced and to which this applies. You can add your own list of life troubles and I'll tell you which I can see as concerned, then you can select those for which you'll need detailed explanations (it would be too long to develop everything, sorry; but once you understand the logic and develop enough imagination, you should be able to figure out most of this yourself without my help - as you will see, this is a much wider set of concerns than the traditional limits of politics)
All what follows in this message is examples of the kind of problems that infoliberalism would significantly contribute to resolve:

As I loved math&physics since childhood and dreamt of being a physicist, and teachers around noticed my exceptional abilities, I & my mother got the advice that I should follow all the teaching system and target the most prestigious higher educational institution (in France: Ecole Normale Supérieure), then PhD, then teach at university, as indeed I was dreaming to share my scientific knowledge at an undergraduate level. This was one of the most awful advices in the universe, as they did not care I was an INTP (they did know what it means). I am so, to such an extent that I can never fit with those absurd institutions anyhow. But it was the official truth of what I "need" and there was no way to contradict it. Especially with my mother, a strong-character, down-to-earth primary school teacher with very strong ambitions for me, that I had no way to contradict until it was too late.

The pseudo-skepticism I found in a scientific newspaper, together with the claims of rationality of this absurd, life-destroying school system, made me an ennemy of rationality in my teenage. I needed a way to think differently from this conformist and life-destroying world around me, to make a sense of my life and suffering. What I found was Evangelical Christianity, to which I converted and kept in my ages 19 - 27 or the like. It took me a lot of troubles until I discovered how false it was, nobody around could properly inform me about it.
Christians keep pretending that they have the truth and could successfully reply to all "attacks", as they most often focus on the wrong references of "attacks" (like those of Nietzche, and some other "official" ones as referenced in the academia) and were not aware of the better ones; but whatever the references, this report is unfair as they could just convince themselves, not any wise and impartial judges. The way Christians I could talk with usually dismiss my deconversion testimony is one of the most ridiculously blind and unfair attitudes of the universe ("spiritually" sincere but methodologically so wrong). Still, they keep teaching their disastrous nonsense publicly as an undeniable evidence and nobody naively hearing them can have a clue how false it is, and how clearly it has already been refuted since long.

Nobody around, Christian and non-Christian, had a f***ing worry for the fact I could not find love, they all pretended it was not a problem and I just had to stop searching (and Christians, that I should focus on Jesus instead). Nothing in this world is ever done to offer any practical solution to, nor even to understand the existence of, the loneliness problem as I developed in this link. But this nonsense dominates, nobody is seriously ready to question their attitudes, and I often seem like a fool when I try to explain things.
The way in which many of the best girls are taken bad the bad guys, abused by their lies or other tricks, so that none of them remain available for the good ones. The way girls jugde men on first impression, which have hardly anything to do with what they may truly need and would appreciate in the long term (to not be beaten by their husbands, for example). Just because they have no way to get the relevant information (or maybe they're not even interested in it ? is this a cultural problem ?).

The way everybody in scientific academia (students and professors) are hypnotized by the quest for meaningless diplomas, entrance contests to prestigious institutions, attending classes, copying everything from the blackboard to the notebook, spending days&nights resolving absurd exercises, at the expense of any authentic interest for knowledge. As if academic diplomas could be a proper substitute for true scientific knowledge & creativity. Such a competition as if the goal of my life would be to compete all the time against many other mathematicians or physicists for being the first to prove the same theorems.

The fact I could not find a free (or cheap) & properly working dating site with many users, because there are thousands of dating sites all over and no chance to try them all to find the best one in a reasonable time, and girls there don't have the chance to properly select their good matches. So I got no reasonable chances to find what I'm looking for (here are 3 aspects of the problem : the general reputation problem for services; the personal reputation of users, and the specific problem of online dating for which I developed the right concepts of features that need to be implemented).

The way so many psychiatrists earn their living by poisoning and destroying the lives of so many people, just because they got a diploma for it so that they never need to pay anymore attention to the real consequences of their actions, and there is no way to complain or get reparation for these massacres, nor even even a way to warn others which ones are the most dangerous, just because there isn't a law for it. The whole power and role of the pharmaceutical industries here can be mentioned as well.

More generally, some pseudo-sciences can easily prosper in the academic institutions and be taken as a truth reference by other institutions and media, just on the basis of a mediatic bubble or a high official rank of one or more of their promoters, disregarding that it turns out to be so ridiculous for any clever person seriously considering the subject and aware of the right arguments.

The way by which, after having convinced about 99% of the thousands of people I debated my ideas with, I still got "no reputation", no fast and easy means (while only fast and easy means would be acceptable to most people in practice) to let others know that these people I could convince, really do exist (as they did not do anything of it afterwards) in order to seem credible in the eyes of anyone else, to let others know that it is indeed a serious project worth of attention rather than fast dismiss, and I really do have answers to most (or all?) natural objections that may be raised.

How hard it is to find a reliable programmers team to make a project, and to avoid unreliable ones.

And just today I faced again more troubles while trying to post a message in the intj forum: the necessity to register one more account (login and pass) just to be able to put a single message, and then being blocked by their antispam system that does not let new users post a message with an url before writing 2 messages, forcing me to spend quite a time finding a hell of a turnaround to that nonsense.
Indeed with my project, the spam problem all over internet communication would be solved quite early (even before political functions), with no more need to create one more account to post a message to another forum.

[spoirier]

I've just been banned from the intjforum for "advertising".

Here is a copy of what I had written:
-------------
Hello. I have defined a project of free software for web servers with new protocols to make a global revolution: spoirier.lautre. net slash trustedforum. html
including arguments why it would work better and have wider applications than Google Wave (I think the first steps of my project would even reach better success with less work than Wave).

But I'm not developer and I don't know how to manage it all. Indeed I'm INTP and I explained and debated the context [here]

I don't have fortunes to invest on it, and moreover I don't intend to set up a business with it, I just wish that some team will make it and release it for free.
I'm not rich enough to afford paying developers at a developed-country price. Maybe I could pay developers of underdeveloped countries (thousands of euros but I'm afraid it won't suffice).

The last time I tried to have my project implemented, it was an ukrainian team that said they found it a wonderful idea, and they found it is so amazing that no other organization ever thought of it and implemented it yet, the world seems to be so stupid.
Finally they gave up after they realized it would be a much bigger work than the 3 months they first expected would suffice for them to make it, so they can't afford.

But my hardest wonder is: there are so many free software developers that contribute to other open source projects for free worldwide, why don't they get interested in this one ?

It seems to me that many open source software developers are sorts of conformists, attached to following well-established trends; and, provided they can find an interesting puzzle or conundrum to work on that fits with the way computers or the Internet are currently working, so that it feels "realistic", they can spend their life on it without noticing that the fruit of their effort will hardly ever be of any effective use (a solution in need of a problem). Their error here is that they are too deeply into the development of complex solutions that only computers can be interested with, and they fail to integrate real problems and needs, human and economic dimensions of the equation. While my thinking approach is to first analyze the logical structure of the real human, economic and political problems that need to be solved; then I find an abstract solution; finally I work to convert this abstract solution into a software project specification.
This is how I analyze the trouble with Chaum's e-money as well as Ripple, as well as all the antispam systems, and maybe somehow Google Wave itself too: they focused on a narrow-minded, hyperspecialized implementation too early and failed to see the bigger picture of alternative global possibilities.

Just recently I mentioned it at mozilla.stackexchange.com/questions/80/doing-better-than-google-wave-openid-and-more, maybe I should have done it earlier...

F***ing antispam systems that don't let me post my links here [I had to trick the urls let them go through] ! if only some people had bothered thinking and understanding all this long ago, the world would already have got rid of these annoying troubles !
----
Next message: I replied it would not require a large number of developers, just a few for a couple of years.

[Razare]

So I read that page you linked in my thread. I like it a lot more now that I've read that page.

Some concerns I have about it are, how will evidence be gathered and presented for disputes? And what of criminal behavior rather than civil disputes? I could see how the system would handle civil disputes well but I am not so certain about criminal ones.

I also have an issue in that, who are you judged by in such disputes? I'm sure you have it written somewhere but I didn't catch it.

And who writes the law? The guy at the top of the pyramid(s)?

Sorry for all the questions, but your documents spend all their time discussing the details without giving me a clear overall picture before explaining.

-------------------------

Another concern I have is that very often, the people that climb the rungs of our current society are the least scrupulous of people, yet they always appear most scrupulous until caught. Bernie Maydolf is an excellent example. Now if his transactions were all handled on this virtual system where there's always a trail of what's going on. He would have been caught right off the bat, I understand that, but I'm just saying the unscrupulous will generally be the ones most capable of earning people's trust. That is precisely what allows them to become unscrupulous. I'm a fairly trustworthy person; but people don't trust me. Why? I am incapable of earning trust since I really don't care about having it, most trustworthy people aren't concerned whether they are trusted by others.

The thing is unscrupulous people are nice, caring folk, who listen to what you have to say and earn your confidence. Then they screw you over behind your back. The more power they gain, the easier it becomes for them to do this without you realizing it.

[spoirier]

how will evidence be gathered and presented for disputes?

Many disputes are so small and simple that they are clear and don't need evidence to be presented.
Not many people will try to lie.
In the current world, most liars or bad people usually lie, cheat or do wrong things many times in their life, in a way that is immediately obvious. Then they don't care because they go away and look for other victims that were not aware of what happened. They don't even need to pretend to anybody that the complaint against them is wrong, because others don't even know that this complaint first existed.

You know, lying can be something complex. In my system, it will become already harder to do small wrong things, from the mere fact they'll have to reply and pretend something else happened instead. It can be a sort of heavy investment. And if someone lies and it is uncovered, then hardly anybody will trust him anymore in my system, because complaints and especially reports of false declarations will remain stored until resolved, and the people considering to declare trust to someone will be informed.

Moreover, many disputes will come following a transaction that was discussed online. Once all discussions will be made through a new private forums system as I described instead of email, all the previous discussion of the transaction that failed is recorded. This discussion space is the one transformed into dispute space. So the history of most of what happened can directly be visited by the other people that will examine the dispute and judge it. So, much of the necessary evidence will already be there.

Now ok we can consider that it does not resolve all cases, some other cases as you mentioned will have to be considered.

Then for big cases that will require an investigation, well, just as I replied above, I don't call for stopping jobs like police in the cases where they would remain clearly necessary.

who are you judged by in such disputes?

By a sort of consensus among people in the chains of trust that were initially supporting those involved. The dispute reaches its conclusion when one party (one claimant and possibly a few people that trusted him) becomes isolated, no more trusted by the rest of the world.

And who writes the law?

I explained it in my web page (look for "social contract").
Roughly, everybody freely writes it for himself, but needs to do it right in order to be trusted by others. As concerns all the necessary details that are too long to be worked on again by everyone, the power to do it can be delegated.
There is no guy at the top of the pyramid

I'm just saying the unscrupulous will generally be the ones most capable of earning people's trust

I think the unscrupulous are most capable of earning the trust of people that don't know them, while the scrupulous better earn the trust of the few people who do know them, don't you think so ?
In my system the guidelines will be clear: ONLY declare trust to the few people you really know and trust. For the system to work you don't need to take yourself the risk to trust many people you don't really know. And you should not mistake trust with reputation even if there is something in common.
Do you think many troubles would still remain in such conditions ?

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by spoirier

Of course, as I already said, I could convince a near-unanimity nearly every time I made a serious presentation and debate with a students group. So the problem is not explaining or debating.

Maybe explaining is a problem. I read this thread, and read/skimmed much of your site. I'm a programmer, I'm interested in this stuff, and have more attention for detail & complexity than most people. And I still have no idea how any of this would work. A lot of what I read seemed incomplete, and there was a lot I felt like I disagreed with. But I had trouble even forming meaningful questions because the ideas seemed sparse, disconnected, and not grounded with real-life examples.

So let's try to resolve that. If you provide some simple, real-world examples of situations where your proposed system is implemented and is clearly advantageous over existing systems, it will help us understand. Maybe some examples involving the following:

- monetary transactions
- dispute resolution
- large scale supply & demand
- public services
- business finance
- justice system (e.g. changing laws, punishments, etc)

[spoirier]

Monetary transaction: I have given an example in the introduction of my page on monetary theory, to explain the idea. It included a dispute resolution.
Well ok it's a very simplified example, a sort of caricature but...
So it provides a generalization of the escrow concept, where both people can make a transaction without directly trusting each other. The advantage over traditional escrow system, is that they don't even need to have one person they directly trust in common to be involved as a third party, so that it can become much more commonly used.

What do you mean about large scale supply & demand ?
I developed ideas of specification for an open (p2p) solution for online dating, though I did not finish writing down that yet. Each market has its specificites and needs adapted solutions. So other kinds of supply and demand would require specific studies for adapted open solutions. But anyway the basic features of the general platform over which any such market can be later developed are clear (global login system in a network of peer independent servers, 1 main account somewhere for each user, private forums as a replacement for email...)
Roughly, my thoughts about supply&demand is just all about free market, but how to make this market more flexible, practical, reliable (closer to the ideal of a perfect market with lower transaction cost by better structuring the information). I don't have complete solutions for everything as it would require a lot of work anyway but I have some clues (more or less depending on the question).
What public services ? I mean, in what is usually called public services, I would probably not consider everything to be treated in the same way.

I know there are a lot of questions. It is a whole new world that would develop, with millions of new details that would naturally emerge. I can't predict nor describe everything. What I have is the definition of the general metastructure that would make all useful changes much easier than in the current democracies.
Imagine you visit a tribe that never learnt about western societies and you try to explain to a very clever person there in a couple of hours the principles on which our society is based: economy, democracy and so on.
Then let him figure out himself for some months, with his own clever imagination, from the hints you gave him, how he would think this should all work, while he had no experience of it. After this, let him try to explain what he understood to another member of his tribe, who know nothing about it either. Will that be clear ?
Now, I have no experience of how people will develop effective solutions to every problem under this new system I defined, and even if I had, it would hardly make any difference: I already have very important clues about the main aspects, and the whole set of small details would be too complex to be fully described in a reasonable time anyway.

Give me a few concrete examples of disputes or other issues and I'll explain how I see them managed in my system.

Changing laws ? give examples of laws to change.

Punishments : while it is not explicit in the core features I wrote on my site, I envision that many punishments will probably be changed into fines and compensations, with possibly an obligation to make a contract with some organization of his choice that will care for reinserting the person in society, either at large (where the organization would take the responsibility that he does not commit more troubles), or in specialized centers. That can include a work to pay for the compensation if he can't afford it all yet. If he cannot find such an organization willing to take this responsibility for him, then it means he cannot be reinserted, so I don't know, either he just goes to jail or is banned from the country...
The advantage of fines and compensations over jail is that it is much cheaper for everybody, and if a judgement was an error and it is later discovered, then it can easily be repaired.

[Deckard]

I would give some specific scenarios, but I suspect it won't be easy to give me what I'm after, which is concrete, grounded examples that clearly show the superiority of your system over the existing ones. And reasons why we wouldn't just improve the current systems.

There are so many ideas to refine and practical solutions to develop that I think scholars could spend years debating all this, and still have no idea whether it would work without actually trying it out. As for me, I will be eternally skeptical of libertarian solutions to government, and of alternative currency systems. Partly because I think the existing systems are fairly good, and have the potential to be significantly improved. And partly because I think libertarianism is flawed in a few ways that I won't go into here.

[spoirier]

but I suspect it won't be easy to give me what I'm after, which is concrete, grounded examples that clearly show the superiority of your system over the existing ones

Can you please just give me examples of issues so that I'll try to answer and we'll see whether it can be satisfying or not, instead of just making speculations about it ?

And reasons why we wouldn't just improve the current systems.

To switch to my system the method is clear and straightforward: just make the software according to the specification I defined (uh, I'll have to complete some of the spec for money but...)
But how can you improve the current system ?
You can argue that an improvement is possible, but how will you make it real, if politicians won't care ?

scholars could spend years debating all this, and still have no idea whether it would work without actually trying it out

I'm not interested to spend years debating all this, I'd find it much more meaningful to have programmers to make it real.
As I said, the first steps of the project would not be political, but would be general features for a better internet (with some similar purposes as google wave). Would you discuss just this, as something that can be worth anyway for itself without any political considerations ?

As for me, I will be eternally skeptical of libertarian solutions to government

Debates can be terribly tricky. But I expect experience to make things clear for manier people once the software will be done.

And partly because I think libertarianism is flawed in a few ways that I won't go into here.

I agree there are some flaws with libertarianism but I think most of them would be resolved with my project.
But if you aren't ready to debate (and I understand it would be very hard), then I can hardly do anything with your disagreement.

[spoirier]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Maybe explaining is a problem. I read this thread, and read/skimmed much of your site. I'm a programmer, I'm interested in this stuff, and have more attention for detail & complexity than most people. And I still have no idea how any of this would work. A lot of what I read seemed incomplete, and there was a lot I felt like I disagreed with. But I had trouble even forming meaningful questions because the ideas seemed sparse, disconnected, and not grounded with real-life examples.

I did not mean it is as easy as many people want it to be.
And I admit that my presentation may need some restructuring to be more easily understandable.
What I meant is that it would probably convince IF enough work was done understanding and debating, as it often happened when I had the opportunity to make a debate about it.
Unfortunately, it requires more study than many people are ready to dedicate for an idea that is "unreal". It would not be such a problem if it was already implemented and widely used, or maybe just if it was Made in Google, as happened with Google Wave. Because such a circumstance would be what would force the people to take the idea seriously and do the real work of trying to understand, raising their questions and paying attention to answers for what is not clear to them, rather than just assuming that it is not worth making the effort to raise questions because there probably won't be good answers.

Indeed I understand that this project is so unusual as compared to existing stuff, that it is hard to figure out and to put everything in its proper new context that will make it work, rather than in the context of usual things where it would not suffice to work properly. And it is not easy to put everything in its context, because, well, we have to start by explaining something before explaining something else...
But if you want to compare in clarity what has not been implemented and that you spent some days trying to understand (without entering a real debate, so that you may be keeping some misconceptions that may be the source of some difficulties) with the current world that you took years to become familiar with, then this comparison is unfair.

I said I prefer to let you raise your own examples of issues or conflicts.
Because I usually notice that it can address so many issues, that choosing my own examples may not be suggesting enough. Indeed you might assume some examples I'd give are representative, and abusively generalize them to other examples of your own experience that need to be addressed in a different way. Then you might wrongly deduce that it would work for a limited set of examples but fail for others. But for other examples it may in fact work by different means, as for properly working, issues may need to be classified in ways you are not expecting.

[Animekitty]

If I may share my thoughts.

1. There are certain goods people need.
food, water, shelter, transportation, entertainment and that needed to maintain it.
2. If a person were completely self sufficient they could manufacture theses objects by themselves.
3. Privacy is a big issue as well. Government abuse is based on keeping secrets from the public in order to keep power.
4. These governments are not elected and are in bed with big business. Military industrial complex/CIA/FBI. Even if some are good guys some are there just for power.
5. The power that government have over the people persist because the people are misinformed on who the bad guy are and because of the need for basic necessity's.
6. If were are to have a fair system then all aspects need to be decentralized.
Watter could be collected on roof tops. Solar would provide electricity for transportation.
7. Each person could have a private computer that would have an open source A.I. system to monitor government/home security.

I hope that helps expand on your thought process.

[spoirier]

Sorry Animekitty but your remarks don't bring anything to the debate, they are way too trivial. What I'm dealing with, is a high level analysis of issues.
Just imagine some people try to discuss relativity theory or quantum physics and you come up with a multiplication table in hope it may help...

[Melllvar]

One suggestion for you if you want to attract programmers would be to snazzy up your site and presentation a little. It might sound like a waste of time when your ideas are good and the information is there, but for some reason people actually tend to take a well designed website with graphics and Flash and such far more seriously than the same information on a white page. I've seen other sites promoting similarly revolutionary sort of ideas that attracted far more visitors and discussion as soon as they switched from a home-built looking website to a professional looking one.

And yes as an INTP I realize this is illogical and pointless, but it seems to have worked for others so I just thought I'd make the point.

I'm mainly posting this because I like your idea and find it very interesting, but the damn truth is I haven't had the time to read your site in detail, so I can't really comment on the meat of it yet. I'd be interested in working on it, most likely, but I doubt my programming skills are at that level (yet). More likely I'd fall into your "incompetent" category. Will take more of a look at it soon, particularly the code/software you had linked, and post back.

Don't expect me to tell many people about it though. Expressing new and different ideas only makes me more of a pariah, and I've quit trying unless someone demonstrates an interest in such things. I'm definitely not the oral debater you seem to be.

[spoirier]

to snazzy up your site and presentation a little

Would you help me doing it someday ?

[Melllvar]

Heck yeah! (or atleast I hope, I've never contributed to any kind of group project or open source thing, but have long wanted to, so there is some "performance anxiety") I don't have much experience with web design beyond playing around with Dreamweaver and the w3schools.com site, but I've been heading more that sort of direction the past year or so anyway, and looking to maybe have a career in software/web/game development, so I'd be more than interested in working on it. It seems your ideas are fairly similar to a lot of my own too, atleast in that the internet is vastly under-utilized and could be used to greatly improve society. The fact that most dating websites are retardedly ill-designed is another one too, but I haven't gotten to how that ties in with replacing governments and economies with a trust based online system yet. Honestly I have some doubts about the large scale effectiveness of this (among other things, telling who to trust can be extremely difficult, I've thought people were my best friends for years just to realize they were only manipulating me), but as I see it it doesn't matter because the world's drastically short on innovative and revolutionary ideas, and if even half of it works that's still progress. Also, selfishly, I could use the experience working on something that isn't my own idea.

Anyhow, to give an idea of my computer literacy I'm fairly competent in C++, but unfamiliar with a lot of the extensions like .NET/STL/etc., have dabbled in a few others (Lisp, C#, Java, JavaScript, Python, but I wouldn't say I "know" them), HTML/CSS, some experience with data structures and have an algorithms book on the way, decent with the major 3d modelling programs (Blender, 3ds Max, Maya, etc.), OpenGL but not GLSL, and have currently been working on learning Unity (the game engine)... and always trying to learn more. Just saying that to give you an idea "where I'm at," so I don't waste your time or get your hopes up.

Funny, I was going to post a link to some sites that track registrations and how the rate of them had gone up when they switched to a snazzier website, but it seems they don't actually list the rate before the redesigns. Furthermore, it seems that the rates are pretty constant except following a major change, which seems to attract a lot of attention and rates multiply for the next few weeks/months, then return to normal. Regardless, here's a link to one graph anyway, although it seems that the chart starts at the redesign and the increases were due to some other kind of publicity.

[spoirier]

Originally Posted by Melllvar

The fact that most dating websites are retardedly ill-designed is another one too, but I haven't gotten to how that ties in with replacing governments and economies with a trust based online system yet.

Replacing governments is just one aspect of my ambition among many others
The new world I'm trying to initiate is about much wider improvements of life of society than the "mere" issues our dinosaurs are officially here for and able to handle with their retarded methods.
"replacing economies" ? uh, as far as economies are based on free market, well, it will still be free market, so many things will keep working in similar ways, but many other aspects and details will change...

Matchmaking is a market among others, with "offer" and "demand" (= males and females), even though there is no monetary prices and exchanges there most of the time, and the most urgent need there is not about introducing one either, but about facilitating the best opportunities (helping offer and demand meet more easily). This is a particular case of a more general economic issue, with the job market being another example. Indeed, dating and job market are very similar as they are just 2 matchmaking markets = where neither offer nor demand is standardized. More comments here
Also, the more wealthy and productive the economy is, the less many people will worry about finding jobs, the more they'll have free time, and many of them will be very concerned with finding the best love they can.
Personally, my misfortune concerning love is the cause of my depression that dramatically affects my productivity; it leads me to travel to other countries to try my chance (but with desperately small efficiency), thus sometimes take planes, shamefully contributing to the CO2 release... More comments on the crucial and political nature of dating here.

So, no matter that economists traditionally don't include that in the GDP, it is indeed a very important economic and political issue.
Finally, the inclusion of a very good dating system in the project can greatly contribute to its popularity; its ability to overcompete some existing big businesses of online dating can also attract a lot of attention. And online dating is a domain where the question of online trust is crucial, therefore stimulating the development and popularity of the online trust system on the same platform - as it is the same new open platform that will enable new solutions to both dating and trust.

Honestly I have some doubts about the large scale effectiveness of this (among other things, telling who to trust can be extremely difficult, I've thought people were my best friends for years just to realize they were only manipulating me)

Well, as I said, an important difference will be that once you discover this, they'll have a hard time staying trusted by others, who you may warn about it, if someone else did not already do it for you before.

[spoirier]

I just clarified the description of conflicts (there "a regulatory mechanism") which is a key feature of the trust system. This may help to understand...

[Deckard]

Ok, I realised what your site is missing. It does need examples as I said before, but more crucially it needs:
- An explanation of the problem
- A brief overview of how your solution addresses the problem
- Very specifically state the ways in which your solution improves over the current system (in terms of the end results)

It is absolutely vital that you provide the reader with the "why" of your project, and not just the "what". Otherwise you will only stimulate a brief interest, and not a deeper understanding and motivation. I realise you have been thinking about these ideas for years and would much rather get down to the details of the solution. You already have the "why" in your head, but people who are new to these ideas need this spelled out explicitly.

The problem definition and motivation for the project should be in the introduction/abstract, as the first thing people read.

[spoirier]

It is hard to express, but I'll try:
A large part of the world's and people's problems (especially those currently classified as political or legal but not only) can be analyzed as caused by a lack of information, which can be of several sorts, but one much needed information is information on trust (as trust to people is what makes it possible to trust any other information they issue). But the main cause of this lack of information is not that this information does not exist, but that it is not shared in a systematic and efficient way. So what needs to be done is to create a network that will collect from users and logically treat this information, to draw from it the useful consequences whenever needed.

Especially, all the political and money system can be analyzed as trust structures.

An election is a collection of trust declarations from many people to draw a conclusion (who should be president).
Laws are about what it is right to do and what is not. That is information, which is the basis of another information: who did the right thing and who did not. But the interpretation of law is a problem, and it may happen that some laws clearly should not apply to some specific cases, then the question becomes more human and specific: did this person do the right thing ? How much money does he deserve for his actions (how useful were they) ? How much should he pay for what he did wrong ? How can people be properly informed in advance about what is right and what is wrong, so that they'll be guided to do the right things and will have no surprise (sometimes it is possible, sometimes it's not, sometimes they can take an insurance...) ?

Money is also an information, a social convention: it is the expression of an agreement of others to pay back some goods or services to who deserves. As an information collectively produced and used, it can also be improved by better information networks. Justice decisions that were produced as an information, can be fully enforced by acting on this other information which money is.
The current money systems are a defective information system: "money has no smell", should be interpreted as: a false information may be mistaken for a true one. But if this information system is rebuilt in a better way then money can be corrected, and business can become fair.

How my solution is an improvement ? well I'm sorry but I think it is very hard to sum up. Indeed it is necessary to enter the complexity of the problem.
There is a minimum of necessary complexity in the solution to be able to handle the problem properly, so that it will yield good results - even though it is finally quite simpler than the current system. To understand how a specific complex solution can produce better results through complex procedures in a complex world, you have to look into the complexity.

Does this clarify enough ?

[spoirier]

To roughly explain how I develop solutions:

For each problem when users need some information that they don't have at first, but this information somehow exists:
The question I asked myself is: how can the needed information (or the best possible approximation of it) be deduced from the existing information ?
Here, by "existing information", I mean: in the minds of other people in the rest of the world.
So, the information first needs to be shared from the minds to the computers. For this, it is necessary to express the right questions that users will be asked to answer.
They'll often have to do it in a responsible way, to ensure the reliability of information. How can they be properly responsible for this ?
Then, by analyzing the meaning of the needed information, I found out that there is an optimal way to deduce the best approximation of answer out of the whole set of available information.
And this solution is a precise way of structuring the information in the large scale.

Naturally, once a system computing the useful information in the best way will exist, it will become the one that users will be best interested to use.

So:
1) I take a problem, a question that users need answers to
2) I define the type of the raw information needed as input from users, that can help to answer the question
3) I define the proper structure by which the desired conclusion can be best deduced from available information

For example, when the question is about trust, it makes sense to use the relation of indirect trust, computed from specific trust connections between people who know each other well. Conflicts happen in debates, as different people believe different things based on different observations, so that they need to communicate their experience more closely to each other for the information to be better shared and corrected. Because contradictions between information makes no sense itself, except that some people were sincere but possibly mistaken in their declaration; as many don't really intend to declare something false, they need debates to understand things more precisely and correct their declarations.
Every detail of the system comes from its way to best reflect the meaning of the wanted information, and the progression in the quest to find out the most reliable answer.
Different questions of trust can require variants of trust connections, stronger or weaker, or thematic.
Other questions, like dating, can require other kinds of information, to be structured in other ways.
There can still be other problems that may require further study to invent still more ways to structure other sorts of information. But I think I already solved a great deal of general cases that suffice for a large set of practical situations.

[spoirier]

OK so I added there a statement of some basic principles. I hope it will help. Maybe I should include some more words about money as an information and why a better information structure can naturally make it more fair.