I could totally envision a dystopian or cyberpunk story based around this concept. Imagine if you could contract anonymously for the death of some one. Now carry that over to the up vote, down vote situation. If enough people down vote you and the pot for your removal is high enough for someone wouldn't potentially anyone's life be in danger of this?
I actually don't think this concept works very well with NAP as I tried to hint at with my @chaospoet post.
If you pull the genie out of the bottle, will it be too late to put it back, and where would it stop?
I actually do think that assassination is preferable to war, but I haven't quite worked out how I would justify that in a truly anarchistic society.
So yes it solves David Friedman's "Hard Problem", yet I believe there is still a Hard Problem. How does this fare when it faces NAP?
I'm interested in reading his actual essay. It's too late for me to get through it tonight, but he claims in the video to make the argument for it being compatible with the NAP. His initial proposition makes it apparent that anyone could be in danger with this type of system, but when you make the distinction that only people who work for government can be targets, it makes being on the wrong side of this a choice once people become aware it is functioning. The whole thing scares the living crap out of me, but it sounds like it could be technically feasible without "the little guy" being susceptible. It think that's why it's so scary. It really is a Pandora's Box. Once someone sets something like this in motion and it gains critical mass, there's no turning back.
There's also the consideration that any organization like this would have competitors who would have an interest in stopping the leaders of other dispute resolution organizations that allow the targeting of benign individuals by said systems. Also as a side note, you could charter the organization in such a way that it would be required to dissolve itself if governments were in fact eradicated, or that it would be required to at least "hang up its guns" and transform into a DRO whose function isn't to assassinate people, but to just help people resolve disputes in peaceful ways.
It's an idea which can easily be abused by whomever has the most money and who has the most money right now? It's the top 0.1% of society.
So what would change? They'd have a decentralized killing machine? It's an idea which in my opinion will cause more war and conflicts because it will make funding death much cheaper. How does that make people safer? And what force is going to keep it from violating NAP? The goodness of mankind?
Well on the other side of that coin, the weapon can be used against the 0.1% of society, specifically because of its decentralized nature. Therein lies the incentive to avoid violating the NAP. Covering your own ass. And the 0.1% of society has a lot more to lose than the rest of society, especially on the bottom half socio-economically speaking. I'm personally not interested in participating in anything like this, but as a thought exercise it seems to have internal consistency IMO.
Exactly... I am the 0.1% and I read your comment. I have put a contract out on you.
The problem with weapons is they can be turned upon the people who create them. :)