Reputation rating system

Economics Political Theory
1

(Yes, this has been cross-posted by me on a buttload of forums. I’m personally interested in the responses of everyone who sees this.)

Most people who are familiar with libertarian legal theory are aware of the idea of replacing a person’s government-declared “legal status” with some form of private reputation rating system, similar to today’s credit rating system. This would do away with all sorts of distinctions, including “felon”, “citizen”, “minor”, and others. It is only concerned with whether a person is capable of engaging in peaceful, voluntary and productive association with others, or not (and to what extent in some cases).

I am in favor of the strategy of “building the new society within the shell of the old”, so I see no reason why we shouldn’t start providing such services now. This is my own imagining of what such a system would look like. Of course, since we’re talking about a free market in reputation ratings, there would be different systems, although eventually a standard would be reached. That standard would then be applied by many competing companies.

This is just a few ideas of what I think would work, and what I intend to start in my own community, in conjunction with some Agorist projects with which I intend to become involved. In particular, I am starting a barter registry which I hope will become the basis of counter-economic trade in my area.

Most of this is self-explanatory, but I have a few specific points. First, there ought to be a means of appealing one’s status to a third party. I would generally support one appeal in any case where a person’s rating would be lowered, but provide two in cases where the result could be a demotion to red or black status. Second, I intentionally made blue the largest category, since I think that is a good default range for people who aren’t thugs.

Generally I think demotions would be made as part of a decision by an arbitor, in addition to whatever restitution is determined (or at least, they would recommend a demotion of a certain amount to the rating agencies). Promotions would happen slowly over time, by recommendation from another person of a higher rating, through periodic reviews, or by appeal.

GOLD (Special Status)

A special recognition for excellence in promoting civil order, especially in the resolution of major disputes and/or the prevention of harm against other persons and their property. Must have a “blue” or “silver” status to qualify.

SILVER (81-100 Reputation Score)

Indicates exemplary trustworthiness and politeness in all forms of association, and has no recent history of aggressive or destructive tendencies. Promotes good service and innovation in business practices. An asset to society.

BLUE (51-80 Reputation Score)

No recent history of antisocial tendencies, trustworthy in business practices. A “good neighbor”.

GREEN (31-50 Reputation Score)

Baseline “safe”. Not a risk to civil order, but has not demonstrated noteworthy positive traits. Exercise basic caution in association.

BROWN (11-30 Reputation Score)

Some history of antisocial tendencies, but is not necessarily a threat. Investigate before forming contracts. May be in a rehabilitation program.

RED (01-10 Reputation Score)

Has demonstrated a tendency toward aggressive and/or destructive action. Cannot be trusted. Rehabilitation possible, but difficult. A liability.

WHITE (No status/never rated)

This person’s reputation may be in dispute. May also be a new customer, or a juvenile. No obvious signs of antisocial tendencies. Exercise basic caution in association.

BLACK (0 Reputation Score - Outlaw status)

Do not associate! Regard this person as an imminent threat. Do not assist in any way if possible. Persons who protect or aid such individuals may be subject to severe sanctions. May be a violent sociopath, a serial criminal, or a government agent.

2

LLs. [;)]

Who is going to pay for this? How much? What is the sales model?

Will you rank people who opt out or rather will you require opt in?

What is your model for handling defamation claims?

3

Actually, that’s a good question. Rather than such a system being promoted by insurance agencies and arbitors (as many people assume it would be) - sort of a top-down model - I think it would be promoted chiefly by neighborhoods and business associations, who would devise their own systems and ask for people to come and apply them. That is only because we would be building this system ourselves, at ground level, amongst our liberty-loving associates.

Probably not much at all - it would be a service provided by local associations in their own self-interest.

They will be diverse and many.

Anyone who doesn’t apply gets a “white” rating by default. Someone who opts out would keep the rating they had at that time, unless there is good cause for changing it. Naturally, only someone with a good rating (green and upwards) would want to advertise their rating. Brown and downward would most likely be published to businesses and protection agencies by the rating company, regardless of those persons’ affiliation with the company.

Investigate the claim made by the alleged defamer. If it is found to be false, demote the defamer to brown, and publish a vindication of the defamed. If it is found to be correct, adjust the target’s reputation score accordingly, and publish the findings. As in all cases, leave the results open to appeal to a third party.

4

McFall, I don’t have much awareness in the libertarian legal theory sector, but I enjoy this effort. This looks like a business model’s way of determining/defining status to business personnel themselves within the company and also a way for the company personnel to apply status upon the society they are interacting with. Now you would need more voluntary business personnel to join in the effort and in time they might be able to work with customers.

As you state: “building the new society within the shell of the old” thus the awareness of current U.S. (or whichever country you are in) would need to be honored as well as the more honorable natural property law I think you’re shooting for, which is your end of the market. My first question is: Does the country you want to set this up in allow for a ‘Dispute agency’ to perform outside of the monopoly government legal system currently established? I don’t know enough about this, so, this is actually a current curiosity of mine. I was discussing this on another thread this morning.

McFall if you could fill me in more on this I would greatly appreciate it, and obviously anybody else that has insight to this topic. Thanks.

5

That’s the real challenge, as far as I can see. I’m going to give it a shot in my area, although people here are generally tax-eating old people or welfare recipients, so I don’t expect much. Perhaps the Freestaters would have better luck, and I’m going to join them at some point.

My answer is, I don’t care. If they do, no problem. If they have a problem, we’ll do it anyway. We’ll just do it real quiet-like. [;)]

6
  1. I would label the colors this way:

GOLD (Special Status)
SILVER (81-100 reputation score)
BRONZE (51-80 reputation score) - you are using two of the three classic medals, so I thought it would be nice to include a third
BLUE (31-50 reputation score) - a neutral color, blue represents the sea, the multitude of people
YELLOW (11-30 reputation score) - caution! yellow better suits this purpose
RED (01-10 reputation score)
GREY (No status/never rated) - seems better for an indeterminate color. White seems too pure.
BLACK (0 Reputation Score - Outlaw status)

  1. Actually, this reminds me of a role-playing game I used to play. Characters would start at a reputation (yes, this is what it was called) of 50. If you did actions that favored/went against the cause of good, you would gain/lose a reputation point. Also, certain skills that were perceived as good/evil would cause you to gain/lose reputation if you took them. Reputation is important, because a high reputation lets you climb the ranks of a guild. In addition, in the games I played, characters with high reputation could buy items for a cheaper price. Certain magic items required a high reputation. If your reputation dropped to 0, your character becomes an evil criminal (time to make a new one) The labels of colors you used reminded me of a character’s aura in the game, that could only be viewed with powerful magic and only became visible in the extreme (0-20/80-100). In retrospect, it was a bad idea, because some characters wanted to be evil in this game.

  2. While ranking criminality/integrity/etc. is a useful idea, there could be more applications. A ranking system for employees that ranks certain qualities could be extremely helpful for employers and employees alike.

7

I would be uncomfortable with the idea of institutionalizing reputations. It could have dire economic consequences for those who may not fit the local mold even though they might be trustworthy and responsible individuals. It could be used to ostracize peaceable non-conformists. Blackballing.

8

No, it couldn’t be used for that because that’s not what it rates. The only thing it rates is whether a person can be trusted not to defraud you or initiate force - and that’s something that’s going to be institutionalized in a free society, whether you’re comfortable with it or not. But while it will be insitiutionalized, it would not be monopolized nor would it be compulsory. If someone wants to make a Conformity Rating System, they could do that, of course - and everyone else would be free to ignore it. As anyone who is aware of the opportunity cost of discrimination (i.e., everyone except a few radical bigots) would do. Meanwhile you could ignore the Reputation Rating, even publish the fact. You could also start your own system that you find agreeable.

9

I think this is a great idea, and exactly what society needs. I even wrote a short piece on how reputation relates to a game theory experiment called the “prisoner’s dilemma” and how tax-funded government programs are detrimental: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/the-prisoners-dilemma-or-why-forced-charity-is-harmful-to-society/5716

I’ve always been upset that the most trustworthy and honest people I know don’t get any more respect than some others who I wouldn’t trust a dime with. I am 100% for rewarding those that reward others.

10

you don’t need to opt in. think of it like the better business bureau for everyone. anyone who wants to enter into business with someone else has a vested interest in having an easy way to check their contract history.

11

The BBB is a consumer gestapo. It extorts membership fees from businesses in return for the privilege to respond to frivolous consumer accusations.

Bad example.

12

I was thinking about this, and had a couple ideas.

  1. I’m not sure if it is necessary to devise the infrastructure for trades, in so much as trades will lead to the demand for a market based infrastructure system. Right now, we could argue, what comes first? Trade or a marketplace? So I’m not poo-poo’ing this idea as much as pointing out that devising the infrastructure before the market has expressed a demand for it, may lead to waste and ultimately failure. As an entrepreneur, a system must match the desires of consumers, not some ideal or intellectual/social/moral standard.

  2. I think there is a market today, and one that could be further developed, for destroying reputation. What I mean is, destroying your own negative reputation. I have several online associates who charge a LOT of money to get negative content about high profile individuals removed from the web, refuted, buried etc. I think reputation rehabilitation, reputation protection and reputation destruction are services not necessarily essential to all market transactions, but a niche within itself. Whether it is a divorcee trying to hide their past, or a businessman seeking to lower his profile, there are a lot of opportunities to manage reputations in a partisan manner. By partisan, I mean clearly working for a specific interest. A paying interest.

Some food for thought.