"He who steals my purse steals
trash, but he who steals my good name
takes that which little enriches him
but makes me poor indeed." Shakespeare
wrote in Othello. Reputation was important
in 1600 and still is today. When someone
attacks your reputation, when someone
insults you in public, when someone
lies about you, what can you do?
Today on the internet you can join
in a "flame war" in which
you insult those who insult you.
You can withdraw from the interaction
and hide away. Or, if you have
the money and enough anger, you
can sue.
None of these responses is very
satisfactory. Flame wars leave everyone
involved feeling hurt, angry, offended.
They are a way for weak people to
feel powerful. ("Look what words
I can type!") But they accomplish
little.
Avoiding such people is difficult,
especially if they are lying about
you to others "behind your back." Such "gossip" can
be quite harmful in one's social
life and one's business life. Telling
everyone the truth doesn't make them
forget the lies.
Going to court helps keep the lawyers
and judges busy but other than that,
even when one wins a lawsuit for
slander, the lies live on.
---------------------------
How would things be different in
the society that adopts the new kind
of money described in "Invisible
Hand"?
To begin with the easy part, there
would be no lawsuits. The new money
cannot be transferred from one account
to another. It's not like a physical
object at all, this new money.
But the computer system (much improved
over the internet as we know it today)
would make it possible to keep a "reputation" for
each person. In other words, it is
important to know with whom you are
dealing. When you meet a stranger,
whom you may consider trusting, it
is good to know whether others have
found them worthy of their trust.
If you are lied to, betrayed, cheated
by someone, it is immoral to allow
them to go on to lie, cheat, and
betray others without providing a
warning. The accounts computer will
already be keeping records on everyone
who gets paid, showing what they
did and what benefits (and harms)
their actions produced. It is relatively
simple to have that same database
include information about such things
as their job performance; how they
treat the homes in which they live;
and how they treat their families,
friends, associates, and acquaintances.
In other words, one can have a computer-based
reputation which can be accessed
by others. If a businessman cheats
those with whom he deals today,
he can simply go elsewhere, change
the name of the business or the
name of the product, and pull the
same swindles all over again. But
with the new money computer system
being everywhere in the society,
such running away from one's past
becomes impossible. So the "reputation" protects
those who might be victimized by
the unscrupulous. But what about
those lies and slander we talked
about at the beginning of this
piece?
I suppose it's just human nature
to be liked by some and disliked
by others. So it's also human nature
to be biased both for and against
specific other people. How can any
system which shows one's reputation
be proof against such bias and even
outright lies? I will not only concede
but proclaim that no system developed
by people can be completely free
of bias. But I will, at the same
time, assert that the bias and untruths
can be minimized rather simply.
For one thing, the computer system,
itself, contains much information
which can be used to verify or disprove
statements submitted for inclusion
in reputations. The computer system
will, for better or worse, be watching
and listening to us more and more
as time goes by no matter what kind
of money we use. That's just a fact
of technology, like it or not. Therefore,
if one is to lie and escape detection
in this future world, one would have
to be very careful to avoid any lie
that could be proven by data in the
computer system. That will eliminate
many potential lies.
To be successful, lies about the
actions of others will have to
be relatively subtle to succeed
in getting past the computer checks.
To make the submissions to reputations
even more accurate, the words that
can be used in those descriptions
are limited and clearly defined.
Simply saying something such as "I
don't like Smedley." will not
qualify for inclusion. Such a statement
contains no information. "Smedley
set fire to the kitchen in my house." is
something that can be verified. Or "Smedley
told me he would be at work on this
ditch by 08:00 this morning and here
it is after 10:00 and he's still
not here." is also relevant.
In other words, reputations are not
composed of feelings but of actions.
This makes them much easier to verify.
But what about simple insults? "Smedley
is a jerk!" Such statements
would not be propagated, broadcast,
or spread around by others since
there is no money to be made in doing
so. In fact, publishing such a statement
would cost those who participated
in that publishing some money. Thus,
the spreading of insults would be
only "word of mouth." This
reduces, though it does not eliminate,
the ill effects of slander. But since
making such statements in public
will be obvious to the computer system,
the speaker will still be held responsible
for his words. This is completely
different from today. Any detectable
harm done to Smedley by such statements
would reduce the pay the speaker/writer
would otherwise receive. Such statements
would also become a part of the reputation
of the speaker. Therefore, being
rude and insulting to others in public
will adversely affect those who act
in that way. This will be much more
effective in getting people to be
polite than are lawsuits.
----------------------------
So there are three things that improve
matters in the society that adopts
the new money described in "Invisible
Hand":
1) Slander is not spread because
doing so costs the spreader potential
future income.
2) One's reputation is checked for
accuracy.
3) Those who slander will have slandering
as part of their reputation.
Having a bad reputation makes it
hard to find people to work with
to make money and harder to get a
place of one's choice to live. Therefore,
there are real consequences of having
a bad reputation in this "new
money" society.
-------------------------
Technical details of maintaining
the reputations in the proposed new
system:
First off, there are well-defined
categories which are the only acceptable
terms in which one is able to submit
contributions to the reputations
data base. That is, one can't simply
use just any words at all, one must
use particular words selected for
clarity and meaningfulness. For example,
one could not say that Smedley was "unfair" but
one could say that Smedley "discriminated
against." Also, certain quite
subjective terms such as "ugly" would
not be available as being irrelevant. "Annoying" would
not be acceptable but "distracting" would
be appropriate.
Thus, the things one could say about
another person would be somewhat
limited but the content of what one
could say will be relevant and precise.
Previous: Non-POM and Charity
Next: Privacy in the World to Come
Ready to discuss the book and articles? Please join us at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pomeducation/.
Care to comment? Please click here to email us!
|