====THIS FILE IS ARCHIVAL. See 'Diary' for newest entries
Listening to Audio.Oekonux.org/2002/seaman.mp3 while reading over Second.Oekonux-Conference.org/documentation/texts/Seaman.html
"'... once working by free software principles has spread far enough throughout the economy that it reaches the people who make washing machines, they will know how to do it. In every revolution of the last hundred years, people have begun to take control of their own work. If the revolution has been defeated, their control has been taken away. If the revolution has won, their control has been taken away. But the possibility is there, and has been shown repeatedly, even though it rarely appears in history books. What free software has proved that is new is the possibility of this style of work on a large scale, sustained over a long period of time.
But in either case, to expect a solution to the 'washing machine question' now would require magic; a sudden jump, whether technological or social, which is not likely to happen.'"
Dec-31-2007: Metanomics.Metaversed.com >>"Metanomics" refers to the study of the business and policy aspects of the "metaverse" of virtual worlds. Metanomics can focus on issues arising within virtual worlds, such as how developers manage the economy of a game world (like World of Warcraft), or how residents of virtual worlds manage and regulate business. Metanomics also includes the study of how real-world businesses can use virtual worlds as part of their strategy, and how real-world law and regulation might apply to virtual-world activities. Finally, metanomics includes the use of virtual worlds as laboratories in which to study real-world business or policy issues.
Dec-29-2007: Response to Blog.P2PFoundation.net/peer-to-peer-dynamics-in-a-corporate-context-is-it-possible/2007/12/29
I agree it is a matter of distributing, or even auto-distributing ownership over the physical means of production to the "right" people.
My personal conclusion is that property should be owned by those who pay, and any price above cost that Consumers pay (what is usually called profit) should be handled as an investment from them. In that way, Users gain Freedom and control in the physical realm similar to the User Freedom RMS has helped owners syndicate through the GNU GPL.
But even if I am wrong about WHO should own (maybe it is the Workers as most suggest), either decision can be enforced by *us* by starting a *new* company who's initial owners choose to apply some kind of "operational contract" that insures the constraints are held in place over the life of the corporation.
If that contract 'solves' some of the problems we see in raw capitalism, then we will outperform and eventually overgrow the current giants.
Could there be a way to start looking at modern commercial companies in a way where the balance of power is radically different from the current hegemony of owners?
What are some disadvantages of creating and presiding over our OWN corporation instead of begging others to "do the right thing"?
Can "the right thing" be phrased in contractual language so it can be enforced through regular property rights?
OSPublish.ConstantVZW.org
Dec-24-2007: Agorism.info >>Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism. In a market anarchist society, the positive functions of law and security will be provided by market institutions, not political institutions. Agorists recognize, therefore, that those institutions can not develop through political reform. Instead, they will come about as a result of market processes.
Dec-18-2007: Noticed Unqualified-Reservations.BlogSpot.com/2007/12/why-i-am-not-libertarian.html via EconLog.EconLib.org
"'And one thing you will see in Rothbard - though Rothbard tends to paint incidents such as Leisler's Rebellion in a suspiciously golden light - is the importance of mob violence and paramilitary armed gangs in American political history. Not just in the Revolution, but throughout the colonial period.'"
Dec-18-2007:
Mises.org/story/2786
"'The (Free) Market for Corporate Control
By Brad Edmonds Posted on 12/12/2007
The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) was created as a response by forcible government to the perceived excesses of the free market that led (if you believe government reports) to the 1929 stock market crash that precipitated the Great Depression.
In actuality, loose credit policies, possible only when an entity divorced from the pressures of supply and demand creates a money substitute not based in any economic reality, were what led to the rampant speculation that led in turn to the 1929 correction in the stock market. The depression that followed, itself a result of government market interventions such as high minimum wages and trade protectionism, convinced the central government to create more rules and bureaucracies to rein in the speculation that itself was a child of government intervention.
What we have now is a cornucopia of SEC regulations having the force of law intended as surrogates for investor due diligence. These are accompanied by state regulations that in large part are advertised as shareholder prophylactics that in practice are nothing more than expensive favors given to local corporations by sympathetic state legislatures.
This describes the market for corporate governance. Corporations owe their existence to the fact that, for hundreds of years, mankind has enjoyed technology that allows a single wily entrepreneur to improve the standard of living of millions of people. A single idea, such as the automobile, can bring about major changes for all of us. Many such important ideas are difficult to realize without the aggregated savings of hundreds or thousands of individuals. Hence the invention of the corporation: a fictional legal entity, a set of relationships governed by contract and statute, that makes possible great accumulations of wealth that can be focused on specific brilliant visions.
Along with these great aggregations of wealth comes the possibility of conflicts of interest. Rationally disinterested investors, like you and me who hold our little 401k retirement accounts that are invested in dozens of large corporations, are the true owners of the corporations. While we are the owners, the great wealth amassed on our behalf is controlled by a few -- perhaps seven to eighteen -- corporate directors and officers. These directors and officers control great wealth, and are entrusted to employ it to our benefit. As these individuals control the wealth, they face incentives to grant themselves lavish perquisites, and to instantiate defenses against loss of control in order to entrench themselves in their cushy positions. Ross Johnson and the officers of RJR Nabisco, who lost control in a takeover battle memorialized in a book and movie, provide an example: their 20 corporate jets and other emoluments helped make RJR Nabisco a stagnant, mediocre performer ripe for takeover by anyone who could raise the funds and make better profits after taking control.
This market for corporate control, exemplified by mergers, acquisitions, hostile and friendly takeovers, and all manner of complicated transactions -- reverse triangular mergers, statutory short-form mergers, cash buyouts, etc. -- designed to skirt otherwise-mandatory shareholder votes and statutory obstructions, often is the only incentive for managers to pursue diligently corporate efficiency and profitability. Reputation and credibility are often enough to induce managers to perform well. When this is not the case, the threat of losing one's job certainly lights a fire under even the most complacent corporate officer.
And yet, in the guise of coming to the rescue of hapless shareholders (who, incidentally, rely on the expertise of analysts who buy securities for large institutional investors such as retirement funds, mutual funds, and insurers), in gallops the valiant SEC and state legislatures to save the day.
The term "poison pill" denotes a variety of takeover defenses, most authorized by statute, that make corporate takeovers difficult for one who wants to acquire a corporation whose directors and managers decide to resist. Here's how a poison pill works: Boards of directors create "rights" held by owners of common stock in a corporation. These rights are similar to stock options or warrants, granting the holder the opportunity to, for example, buy a number of shares (in accord with the number of shares already owned) at a discount price. Upon a triggering circumstance, such as a certain percentage of stock owned by an outsider (usually 20%), the rights are instantiated, and the rights apply only to the shareholders not attempting to take over the corporation.
Michigan and Indiana are examples of (the many) states that have anti-takeover statutes in effect. Under such statutes, if a single stockholder crosses a specified threshold of ownership (again, usually 20% of the outstanding shares), that stockholder loses his voting rights unless a majority of the other shareholders vote to restore those rights.
The result: There are fewer corporate takeovers than there were in the 1970s and 1980s, before such statutes were passed, and before the poison pill was invented by the inventive corporate defense attorney Martin Lipton. The takeovers that succeed today are "friendly" ones, of which the target corporation's board of directors approves, as opposed to the "hostile" takeovers that characterized the wild and woolly 1980s. In friendly takeovers, please note, the acquirer usually buys out the directors and officers with offers of lucrative "consultant" contracts that keep the ousted officers and directors gainfully employed.
State legislatures approve such laws because the laws are lobbied for by representatives of the corporate directors and officers in the legislatures' jurisdictions. "We mustn't let some outsider come in and fire all our constituents" is the usual lobbyists' battle cry. The result for shareholders, however, is loss of wealth %G—%@ essentially, the possible gains in value of all our little retirement accounts are transferred to the sellout directors and officers.
Before all the anti-takeover statutes, hostile acquirers would offer shareholders a premium price for their shares %G—%@ usually 25 to 100% above the current market price. In the face of such takeover bids, directors and officers would find some reason to persuade courts that the takeover bids presented some kind of "threat" to the "corporate enterprise" (as though the corporation should be considered an entity apart from the shareholders themselves). Usual threats included the dire possibility of liquidation (we hear a gasp from the audience) %G—%@ as though you, the shareholder, would be upset to be offered a tidy profit on the shares you hold, and as though you'd care what happened to the corporation, including its half-dozen senior officers, after you made your profit.
$20
"There is nothing government can do that free markets can't do better."
Corporations exist ultimately for the benefit of their owners. The owners of all the major corporations in the US and the world are you and me. The market value of a share of stock is the net present value of its future cash flows %G—%@ dividends, plus a gain in the share price realized upon later sale of the stock. If you, the stockholder, can realize a sudden and greater-than-expected gain, you are better off.
The market for corporate control, at its freest, absent government impediments to corporate takeovers, induces managers to continually strive for greater efficiency and profitability. Hampering that market entrenches managers and directors at your expense. Government makes a pursuit of hampering that market.
Thus, in the market for corporate control as in every other regulated industry imaginable, government creates barriers to the creation of wealth at the behest of the wealthiest and most connected among us, and at the expense of the rest of us. While it is inconsistent with Austrian economics and the ethics of liberty to begrudge the good fortune of entrepreneurs who become wealthy as a result of improving our lives, it is good to resent government intrusions that divide us into camps, with some benefiting at the involuntary expense of others.
This sums up the effect of any forcible government on any free market: those connected with forcible government are benefited while overall human progress is stunted. There is nothing government can do that free markets can't do better.
'"
Dec-12-2007: Unsent Letter to Mika
> Patrick,
> I have found your comments very thought provoking.
> By the way the wiki I have created is opened to all to edit. All you
> need if I understand correctly is to apply to the admin guy (that's me)
> by clicking on the appropriate button and I'll give you access.
> You've provided a really useful list of links which I'll take a bit of
> time to explore.
> As for the initial rules of the game - this is interesting, there is a
> trade off between making it real and as you suggest laws of physics
> could be the bare minimum but you would need a very easy entry level for
> participating. I would not like people to be put off to easily or be
> plain bored.
Yes, I've thought alot about those things and need to write more of it down. My intention is to make caring for your body and environment mostly 'automated' and out of the way while still allowing the user to attempt controlling as much of these 'vegetal' requirements as is interesting to them.
But the idea of physical requirements is important to me because I don't see another way of simulating the conditions needed to foster the growth of economic systems as defined by how the players eventually choose to interact with one another. If a homeless player's body is getting weak because he has not eaten or slept in a few days, what lengths will he go to for a loaf?
We can make it easy enough at first by insuring at least one 'city' in the virtual world is a permaculture paradise.
But I also expect most users may choose to operate as regular Capitalists with the vproperty they own. This will help us test the validity of the simulation and to compare other Modes of Production such as whatever the details of Wikitopia that you envision, or my goals with EcoComics, etc.
> So I had imagined just like the Marxists who imagined one
> would inherit society post Capitalism, the game similarly would inherit
> the means of production, its good bits and its abberations which
> gradually the game will have to shape to human needs. And so on for the
> rest of the society inherited from world capitalism its good bits and
> its defects.
I actually agree that a server operator should be able to start the game at any level of 'progress'. This would also be useful to re-create the conditions of a place on earth at some point in time for instance.
But part of what I was talking about with the nail, forge and mine has to do with the programming work involved in making the simulation accurate.
We (eventually) will be able to start a game that begins with fully operational factories for the production of everything we already know how to produce in the real world, and stores full of product, but I think all production during the game must follow a simple 'require' rule that allows copying objects only when all prerequisites for that production have been met.
You can (eventually) copy a loaf of bread, but you'll need a sunny spot of land, some water, some wheat seed, some skill, patience and time, some tools to sow, harvest, thresh, grind, mix, knead, bake, cool, cut, butter and eat.
My opinion is that if the game does not enforce some simple requirements of production, a meaningful economy cannot emerge.
But I also agree that annoying and boring are not good.
> It would have two advantages:
> 1- show a path between where we are now and where we want to be
> 2 - it would be more macro level, we would not have to as you mentioned
> create the basic forge to shape the objects we need - so in theory the
> learning curve would be less of an uphill one.
I think I understand you and agree with your desire to simplify and streamline the interface.
I wonder, do you have any sketches of what you think the game should look like, and/or how do you see this different from SecondLife?
If you envision things the same as SecondLife, then how will Wikitopia be different?
If Wikitopia is different from SecondLife, then in what ways is it different - especially with respect to user freedoms and account pricing?
> I'll think some more and write some more soon...
> All the best
> Mika
Dec-12-2007: Heavily edited letter to Max
Subject: Owners control too much when profit is not treated as "Consumer Investment"
People seem fascinated with observing and discussing 'bad' corporations and the politicians that work for them, but why is nobody interested in discovering *WHY* they work against us?
Must every business and all the governments they control be against the very consumers and citizens they claim to serve?
If a few people landed on an island would they immediately attack each other? It seems obvious they would try to cooperate, but then when or how does it go wrong?
Does the scale of the situation make the former problem disappear? When does a society begin attacking itself (at what number or concentration of people)?
> I just think that perfect world cannot be attained overnight.
Neither do I. The way I envision implementing this through normal property ownership will be quite slow at first, but will grow exponentially if it is more efficient (economic) in the way I claim it is.
> So, in order to take baby steps toward a goal, I should focus on one little thing at a time. The thing that I'm focused on right now is getting some good land, and eventually paying for it in full.
Our goals do not conflict; in fact, property ownership is the only way I know how to implement the trade agreement I've been working on called "The GNU General Public Law".
> Now, in this world, we'll never completely own something, because we have a Govt to pay property taxes to, but I can at least get as close as possible.
US property taxes are at the city and county levels. If there enough intial investors willing to buy a larger area, we might declare ourselves an independent city and only be required to pay county taxes - and presumably only for the services we ask the county to provide?
Eventually (think long term) if selling organic produce brings the high wages and high profits I expect it would, and if we choose to treat those profits as investments from the consumers who paid them, then WE as a community will increase in size and productive diversity as the land and capital purchased through those user investments will be used to install productive permacultured housing across counties, states and nations.
> Once I have the land, I can begin the next phase of my plan, which is to
> grow crops... who knows if my dreams will ever come true, but I can only
> keep working, and hope!
I wish I were better at growing. We are dangerously dependent upon the very corporations who's operations we deride.
> You guys should do something with that acreage
> you have. Do pinyon trees grow there? You could start a pine nut
> business... You can take baby steps by undercutting the Chinese farmers
> and selling them for like $7/lb.
Yes, I've looked into those. Similar to you, I will plant some of these slow-to-produce varieties only after I've moved to where I'd like to live. Utah is not that place.
> It wouldn't be a profit if you put it all in Lilly's college or something!
Profit is the difference between "Consumer Price" and "Owner Costs". "Owner Costs" include all Wages paid to Workers.
Profit is a measure of value, but is not a reward to be won - rather, profit is a mismeasure of development. A fully prosperous society would have perfect competition and no profit at all.
A "for profit" business must keep price above cost to be considered successful. Allowing Price to meet Cost (and profit to hit zero) would mean failure for that corporation even though it should be the goal of society to insure abundance.
Owners of Physical Sources pay Costs early as opportunity loss or as interest on debt. They also 'pay' through any other risks they take trying to make that round of production succeed.
Some of these Costs are objectively valid, while others are toast buttering such as inflated wages or bonuses to Owners continuing in to Work in unimportant or posh+overpaid positions.
Inflated Wages (think C*O salaries) divert funds that would have otherwise been labeled Profit if Physical Source ownership were more distributed to those who pay for those products - the consumers.
Consumers already pay all Costs (including Wages) AND they are paying the Price above Costs which the Owners title "Profit". Consumers pay more than Cost when they don't control Sources because they cannot "go around" the owners unless they were to buy some of their own Physical Sources and start a fully separate corporation. But the goal of such a venture would most likely be the same as the business it was meant to out-compete: to keep price above cost.
When a consumer owns the Physical Sources required for the production of the objects he uses, he might pay other Workers to change the inputs into the outputs while he works at his own specialty, but that Wage would be a Cost of production.
Consumers who own Physical Sources can't pay profit unless they were to pay it to themselves as an investment toward future production.
Owners separate Wages from Profit for a Physical Source when they allow all possible Workers to compete for those jobs - with the ideal candidate having the highest skill/wage ratio but usually with a skill level minimum and a wage maximum.
Workers are also Consumers.
Workers needs food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, transportation, education, etc. and expects other people to apply their own skills so he can buy lunch after trading his labor.
But there are barriers to Trade Freedom. I think of this as a matter of resource allocation. Humans are mostly innocent because of ignorance.
It is a technical 'performance' issue related to the mis-distribution of Property Ownership that results in a very inefficient system with larger Owners clearly working against the rest of society only because we misunderstand the meaning of profit.
Typical corporations have incentive to stop real progress and permanent solutions because profit requires consumers NOT have control of the physical sources of production.
So "The Economy" has for-profit corporations in a strange position where they FAIL (by definition) when a consumer can get product "At Cost" because profit is nothing more than keeping Price above Cost.
Profit *REQUIRES* the object consumer be dependent upon the physical source owners, and may be minimized by treating it as an investment from the consumer who paid it. This distributes control and independence (freedom).
> Those are some good questions, and I really don't know the answers. But I
> will just ask another question: What can we do to stop it??
I think everyone that has participated in "The Economy" already knows what is wrong, but has given up on the idea that we could fix it through ownership.
> And since the underlying factor in all of their actions seem to be money and profit, then the solution would just be to stop buying their products!
Yes. And we need alternatives. You are one of the few I talk to that grasps the importance of owning agriculture. Ag is a source of almost all that we need, but requires land and water that are being privatized by the bumbling capitalists.
Most sense something is wrong with "The Economy". They say we shouldn't buy products from 'bad' (usually coincidental with 'big') corporations because they are for some reason not on our side.
Smaller companies seem less 'bad', but are fundamentally the same if they seek to keep price above cost by denying that difference is a consumer's investment.
But must all business (and therefore in the end, Govt) always be against us? How do so many well intentioned communities tend to fail as they grow in size?
Profit is the difference between the Price a consumer pays for an Object(ive) and the Costs the owners of the Physical Sources paid for it's production.
But why does a consumer ever pay more that cost? An Object consumer pays Price above Cost when he does not have ownership in the Physical Sources of those Objectives.
We pay $9.00/lb for pine nuts from China because the Govt removed millions of Pinyon trees from the Western United States under the guise of improving cattle grazing. The Department of Agriculture 2007 Farm Bill is yet another handout to big agri-business 'farmers' that pays these Owners to NOT grow things such as wheat to keep Prices above Costs since we have [insanely] crowned Profit as the very measure of success!
The more dependent a society is upon such corporations, the more potential for those corporations to profit through higher Prices and lower wages.
By this we see that Profit is inversely related to Ownership Distribution and Vendor Competition. Competition is perfected as the number of vendors is maximized, because each Consumer *becomes* his own vendor as he gains real property ownership in the land, buildings, water rights, fungi/flora/fauna and tools needed for the production that must occur.
If a consumer could somehow gain ownership in the physical sources needed for his daily bread, such as the wheat fields, tractors, grainaries, grinders and ovens, then a strange ~ almost magical thing happens: Price approaches Cost and Profit approaches zero. In the perfect(*) case:
Price == Cost and Profit == 0
When property is finally in the proper hands, democracy will be direct because owners rule their own property through votes amongst themselves weighted by their % of ownership in that particular Physical Source.
> Or, in
> this case, stop watching their news. We can go on the internet to get any
> of our news anyway, from anywhere we want. So the key to ensuring this to
> be still available for years to come is to stop the Govt from trying to
> regulate the internet. Paul's the only guy out there who addresses this
> issue.
When you use the word "Govt", you should replace it in your mind with "Corp" because it is the OWNERS of the current internet infrastructure such as AT&T etc. that want more regulation. And they want more regulation because Artificial Scarcity increases the potential for profit.
This is why we must BUY some land and tools and become the new OWNERS that start businesses, including ISP and hosting providers, that treat profit as an investment from the consumer who paid it - so the corporation would grow through the user investment called Profit that is usually pocketed by the Owners as a prize (a prize that also happens to incent the anti-social behaviour we have already discussed).
> If nobody watches their news, then the corporations that pay for the
> advertising will go where people are watching, and that puts money in the
> pocket of the honest news corporations that have all the viewers. I guess
> in my vision of capitalism, we should reward those that put forth a
> quality product, and that all starts with the consumer being more
> discerning on where they want to spend their earnings.
I agree with this, and as I said, many people understand at this 'level' of complexity. The difficulty is in starting an extended discussion about the details of WHY.
Most people I try to engage in the intricacies of why "The Economy" fails us find it far too boring - partially I think because they have unconsciously given up on the idea we could ever be in direct control.
Dec-10-2007: http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~mrenold/mypaint and http://old.homeip.net/martin/painting >>MyPaint - drawing program with dynamic brushes for graphic tablets
Dec-10-2007: We must buy land to raise mushrooms, nut and fruit trees, bees, chickens, cattle, berry and hop vines, corn, oats, barley and wheat.
Dec-10-2007: BioBees.com >>Sustainable Beekeeping - chemical-free, low-cost, low-maintenance, top bar hive beekeeping for everyone
http://www.mygarden.me.uk/ModifiedAbbeWarreHive.htm
http://www.mygarden.me.uk/beekeeping_for_all.pdf
Dec-10-2007: Email response to Max
> Here is a brief look at why the Secure Fence Act will eventually be
> dismantled, as touched upon by Ron Paul in the most recent CNN/YouTube
> debate. If you want to do more research, you can google "NASCO Corridor"
> or "NAFTA Superhighway"...
> YouTube.com/watch?v=wbyebk-V-Hs
The CFR, Trilateral Commission, NASCO, NAFTA, CAFTA, North American Union, Security and Prosperity Partnership, and even "National Sovereignty" as Paul puts it are about international relations, and I would claim mostly about international *trade*.
The "Setting the Record Straight" document at http://NASCOCorridor.com/admin/images/docs/NASCO%20Speaks%20Out.pdf tells us
"Everything from the telephone on your desk, your computer, your coffee maker and even your toothbrush got to its final destination by truck, rail, ship, or plane."
The NORTH AMERICA'S SUPERCORRIDOR COALITION is very concerned about transportation.
The "Land Rent" (or "Single Tax") of Henry George has a large amount to do with sprawl and excessive transport of humans.
Permaculture addresses the movement of product by putting it at our doorstep.
We become more vulnerable as the beast grows these heavier arteries with the funds we give them every time we pay a Price above Cost. Their Profit against us is a microcosm of the Military Industrial Complex based wars that we are fooled into believing are about righteousness and goodness.
Every purchase we make is a concentration of power into the hands of Nestle, General Mills, ConAgra, Hershey's, Dole, Monsanto, ... They use that power against us to ensure their reign. Their reign is held in place through simple property ownership of the Means of Production needed to re-create our daily bread.
We must purchase land and grow heirloom foods that will soon be extinct or outlawed if the profiteers have their way. The profiteers will continue to have their way only for as long as we continue to pay them. We will continue to pay them for as long as we do not have a realistic alternative.
Let's work together to design and implement a realistic alternative that keeps control and trade as local as possible.
Dec-10-2007: Compiling Gnash:
$ cvs -z3 -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.sv.gnu.org:/sources/gnash co gnash
$ cd gnash/
$ sudo apt-get install libgtkglext1-dev libming-dev libboost-thread-dev
$ wget SWFTOOLS.org/swftools-0.8.1.tar.gz
$ tar -xzf swftools-0.8.1.tar.gz
$ cd swftools-0.8.1
$ ./configure
$ make
$ sudo make install
$ cd ..
$ rm -fr swftools-0.8.1
$
$ ./configure --enable-renderer=opengl --enable-media=ffmpeg
$ make
> make[2]: *** No rule to make target `triangulate_float.cpp', needed by `libgnashbase_la-triangulate_float.lo'. Stop.
Dec-08-2007: Working a bit at wiki.EcoComics.sf.net
Dec-06-2007: Finished a rewrite of ownership for SocialSynergyWeb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/UserOwner
Dec-03-2007: Email to Mika at Mikatopia.BlogSpot.com
> Hello Patrick,
> First, I am deligthed by your email and must apologise for answering it
> with a 2 weeks delay. I had almost lost hope someone would provide
> feedback and had stopped monitoring the account daily.
You see I'm a slow responder myself ;-)
> You see, I put together these sites a while ago in the hope someone like
> you would find the concepts interesting or were indeed like you already
> thinking about these concepts.
I guess wiki spam made you disallow (or maybe you never allowed) user-created wiki accounts?
> I have copied an old friend, Richard Greeman (you can google him or
> check http://www.nybooks.com/nyrb/authors/13178 ) who I am sure will be
> very keen to join in the discussion. Richard has been thinking and
> writting about this concept for many years, long before I began to
> articulate my ideas on the topic.
> What I had envisaged would have been collaborating on a wiki to
> elaborate rules of a new society which in turn would provide a developer
> such as yourself the rules for turning this into a virtual world. Now I
> have been in the IT industry for a long time and I do realise this is
> far easier said than done.
We'll collaborate in the wiki and later, also in the game :^)
> Another approach might be to "highjack" or rather use second life in its
> present form
Watching my daughter play I liked the "atmosphere" created by the Second Life engine.
There are thousands of other Free Software (Open Source) projects we can draw technology from including:
* http://Sauerbraten.org is very interesting engine that allows players to 'edit' the map from within the game.
* http://WideLands.org >>similar to Settlers II.
* http://PlaneShift.it >>virtual fantasy world in which a player can start as a peasant in search of fame and become a hero.
* http://WorldOfPadman.com is a Quake3 total conversion. Some data files may not be free.
* http://OpenArena.ws >>A completely free game for the FOSS Quake 3(TM) Engine
* http://Glest.org >>real-time customizable strategy game
* http://ScourgeWeb.org >>S.C.O.U.R.G.E. is a cross platform, open source rogue-like game in the fine tradition of NetHack and Moria It sports a graphical front-end, similar to glHack or the Falcon's eye.The design of the 3D UI is an attempt at the best of both worlds from old to new: It lets you rotate the view, zoom in/out, view special effects, etc with the feeling of the old-school isometric games like Exult or Woodward.
* http://FreeDroid.sf.net >>FreeDroidRPG is a free isometric RPG game inspired by elements of Diablo and Fallout.
* http://SilverTreeRGP.org >>This release is intended to be a fun introduction to the Silver Tree engine. The game is heavily in development, but most of the major intended gameplay features are already present. Players can explore the world, build a party, fight enemies, gain experience and assign skills, and acquire equipment.
See http://EcoComics.org/game.html for my extensive (but still mostly uncategorized) list.
> and set up an island banishing commerce and trialling
> industries geared to human needs could flourish - but it sounds a bit
> far fetched no ? and how would you play the game ?
Here are some of my ideas along those lines...
There will always be costs for hosting, and they will only increase with the number of users if we succeed in drawing attention, which is part of what I assume we are trying to do.
Some costs are periodic, such as a hosting service's monthly or yearly charge while other costs depend upon usage, such the hosting service's bandwidth limits, CPU, RAM, Hard Drive, electricity. The various 'loads' a user puts on the game server should weight his price to incent thrifty users and insure heavy users pay for excluding others.
Some of the costs we'll face (including our labor):
* Define the purposes and goals of the game at a high level.
* Organize and orthoganalize meaningful player constraints.
* Write some pseudo-code to discuss flow and logic.
* Remix some Free Software to begin an implementation.
* Find a hosting provider; setup and maintain payments.
* Install the software and keep the server running.
Some users, especially newbies impact these real costs very little because they have such a small " footprint".
As users advance, some would be willing to pay the real costs that their "owning" and "using" in the virtual world put on the server.
Getting this all figured out and getting the money collected is quite a mess, so many owners of Free Software game servers offer the connection for 'free' - in that there is no connection fee.
That is somewhat philanthropic on the surface, but there is a control issue because these hosting administrators (probably the same programmers that are working on this version of the game) have arbitrary dictatorial control over any number of users. I would call this a "common" problem in these communities, and is central to what I see as the problem with most communities in the physical world as well.
...
One idea I've had about commerce is to just "let it emerge" (in all it's various forms) in whatever community of users that finally play the game.
That emergence will require the player's virtual "body" face real and recurring needs and their 'solutions' including: sleep(land, house), drink(water), eat(food/medicine), clean(soap, sanitation, sewer), cover(cloth), heat(fuel), etc.
For the economy to make sense, all production must occur somewhere in the game and be based on "prerequisites" being met. If the right plants, animals and tools are not available, then those products will not be available. If you want nails, you will need a forge and a smeltering pot and iron ore and tools to dig for the ore (unless you are lucky enough to find some near the surface), etc.
This will make the game very bleak and maybe even boring at first, but I think this might actually good, because it will keep the complexity low for a period of time - hopefully long enough for us to learn what is wrong with the real-world economy.
There should be no artificial restrictions such as a 'force-fields' when a person attempts to cross a border or take an object that is not his property. Property is very important, but we don't want to solve anything with *magic* or we won't see what how the users will organize to solve it for themselves.
Some users may choose to make some things "against the law" for some land or capital that they own, but such laws are only enforceable within their borders, and only in the same ways they can be enforced in real life.
In my opinion, the laws of *physics* should be the only constraints, and should be fully enforced.
> So anyway, my first objective was to spark discussion with interested
> developers so looks like we are on the right track !
> Richard by CC - comment away !
> All the very best !
> Mika
>
Maybe the wiki would be the best place to start?
BTW: I just created http://sf.net/projects/ecocomics under my old username 'patware' with hopes of getting some of my own stuff going for now...
Dec-01-2007: registered EcoComics.sf.net
EcoComics is a simple but realistic simulation of physical nature and the market economy. The health of your body and environment are goal.
EcoComics is a new kind of virtual world with the highest priority being accuracy in modeling reality with respect to production and property.
The physical costs of hosting an EcoComics server are charged to each user according to the burden their account puts on the system.
Dec-01-2007: Reviewing some Free Software:
Animation: synfig.org and ktoon.toonka.com
Movie viewing: VideoLAN.org, MPlayerHQ.hu, xineHQ.de GetMiro.com
Movie editing: KinoDV.org, OpenMovieEditor.sf.net, LiVES.sf.net
Paint: GoghProject.com >>Gogh is a GNU/Linux bitmap graphics editor. It is designed to work with pressure-sensitive input devices, like a Wacom tablet.
Older entries: diary-nov-2007