is one of the most common responses I get when I talk to people (usually liberals) about horizontal power structures. It comes down to some version of "Well, that sounds nice, but what about the bad actors?" I think the logic that follows from that fact is backwards. The standard response to this issue is to build vertical power structures. To appoint a ruling class that can supposedly "manage" the bad actors. But this ignores the obvious: vertical power structures are magnets for narcissists. They don’t neutralize those people. They empower them. They give them legitimacy and insulation from consequences. They concentrate power precisely where it’s most dangerous. Horizontal societies have always had ways of handling antisocial behavior. (Highly recommend Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior by Christopher Boehm. He studied hundreds of forager societies, overall done amazing work.) Exile, public shaming, revocable leadership, and distributed decision-making all worked and often worked better than what we do now. Pre-civilized societies didn’t let power-hungry individuals take over. They stopped them. We used to know how to deal with bad actors. The idea of a "power vacuum" only makes sense if you believe power must be held at the top. If you diffuse power horizontally, there is no vacuum to fill. There’s just shared responsibility. That may feel unfamiliar, but it’s not impossible. We’ve done it before. Most of human history was built on it. The real question isn't whether bad actors exist. It's how we choose to deal with them. Do we build systems that make it harder for them to dominate others, or ones that practically roll out the red carpet? I think this opens up a more useful conversation.
What if we started seriously discussing tactics for dealing with domination-seeking behavior?
What mechanisms help us identify and isolate that kind of behavior without reproducing the same old coercive structures?
How do we build systems that are resilient to sabotage without falling into authoritarian logic?
I’d love to hear your guys’ thoughts.
How is that not a form of coercion itself?
In most cases, we can assume that the people bound by the social contract agreed to the social contract as a condition of joining the group. In other words, they were not coerced into that behavior, and any penalties that they suffer as a result of violating the social contract are penalties that they agreed to as well (so long as said penalties are also outlined in the contract up front). It seems like coercion because bad actors typically resist the penalties imposed as a consequence of their bad behaviors, but it actually is not, because they agreed to all of it up front.
Things get tricky only when we consider the case where the social contract is imposed upon people who did not agree to it beforehand, which does apply in the case of a society that is doing external policing, or arguably in the case of children - they are subject to rules that they did not choose for themselves. In this case, we are coercing them, and we have to admit this one exception. We avoid the paradox of tolerance so long as the contract only allows society to coerce those individuals who break the rules of the social contract, which otherwise outlaws coercion. To actually justify this set of rules requires now that we reason about some broader objectives, like maximizing freedom or minimizing harm. I would imagine that the exact details of the social contract would end up as the subject of an ongoing discussion due to the difficult and sometimes ambiguous nature of the underlying objectives, though I still think that the amount of variation that we would see between different (non-narcissistic) groups would end up being rather small. This is the sort of thing that should be refined over time as we learn more about ourselves, our world, and how we would best fit into it.
That's fine if this is started from scratch, but if there was some revolution that overnight rid the world of capitalism, there would still be many who would never willingly accept any social contract. Pick any historical even you like, there is almost always some group that is in opposition. For the american revolution it was about 15-20% of the population who sided with England. If you want to get really depressing about it, in a 2011 CNN poll 23% said they'd sympathize most with the Confederacy.
Assuming similar numbers in our overnight revolution, what is to be done with those 20% that do not agree to join the group under this social contract?
And when they transition from childhood to adulthood, if they find that they do not wish to agree to this social contract, what is the process for handling that?
If someone does not agree to the social contract, but their disagreement is minor and we would expect them to still uphold at least a reasonably similar one, then we can let them find or make a community/society that adheres to that contract.
However, I think you are probably more interested in the case where they are very opposed to the nature of the contract, as in, they want coercion to be allowed in circumstances besides dealing with violators. Unfortunately, if we wish to avoid a paradox of tolerance, we have to revoke such a person's right to participate in society - any society - until such time as they come around (or possibly permanently, depending on the nature of the situation). This will inevitably involve the use of force. Why must we do this? If we allow people that believe coercion should be allowed outside of the context of enforcing rules to exist outside of our own society, then they will just do exactly what they did the first time we made that mistake. They'll accumulate, form a hierarchical society with a military, and start destroying things. Even if they do not directly attack other societies, the damage that they'll do to the environment will indirectly impact everyone else - and as we have seen with global warming, that damage can even be enough to threaten the existence of life on this planet itself.
Of course there will be people who won't accept a social contract that forbids coercion in the common case. Just like how egalitarian societies did not voluntarily become hierarchical ones, hierarchical societies are not going to voluntarily become egalitarian ones.
Are you proposing prison for those that disagree with the social contract?