Related: diary
Jul-23-2008:
I've been thinking about the GEET hydrocarbon (H+C+O) plasma cracker compared to the "Joe Cell" hydroxy (H+O) cold plasma.
At "stage three", the Joe Cell is said to contain 'charged' water that is very clean and even refreshing to drink.
Once charged, a Joe Cell will respond to vacuum
that only a very small voltage and microamperage, almost stasis (a 1.5v A cell lasting months/years)).
Both use electromagnetic steel cylinders under vacuum.
GEET exhaust may contain "LITHIUM, BERYLLIUM, ALUMINIUM, CHLORINE, ... and the Periodic Table numbers 109, 111 and 131"
HHO or "Brown's Gas" is also said to be dangerous to breathe.
Jul-21-2008: Posted to http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/community-protection-in-product-service-platforms/2008/07/21#comment-277064
The real “missing p” is Property.
When users OWN the means of production none of these problems occur.
Do you think users cannot afford to own the means of production? They already pay for it when they buy products. The only difference is that they pay *after* production instead of *before*. That can be solved by encouraging users that can afford to buy early to pre-purchase the product. But they won’t just be buying the product, they will become part-owners in the company. The return on their investment is ‘product’ instead of ‘profit’. Any late-comers who pay full price (both costs and profit) become part-owners in the amount they paid above cost. In other words, profit must be treated as an investment from the user who paid it to insure such disasters as described do not happen because the current user base will always be in control.
How strange is our stance that all production must be AGAINST the very people it pretends to be FOR.
Production should be for USE value, not for the work it takes to accomplish it. Work is a cost we want to minimize, don’t we?
What are our goals? Does peer production require user price remain above owner costs just as in Capitalism?
Jul-19-2008: Posted to http://Autonomo.us/wiki/Talk:Draft_statement
''Consider very carefully whether to use software on someone else's computer at all. Where it is possible, they should use Free Software equivalents that run on your their own computer. Services may have substantial benefits, but they represent a loss of control for users and introduce several problems.''
User lose some control when they share hardware, but sharing hardware can be worth the value of cooperation.
We, the users, could host Software Service Freedom immediately if we could just learn to share hardware in cooperation.
Hardware is needed for all production, including Software Services. Software users are also Hardware Consumers because Software requires Hardware.
Hardware has initial and recurring costs that somebody must pay.
Non-owning consumers already pay all costs, AND they pay profit.
When the consumers own hardware pay all the same costs, but that is all they pay. Owning Consumers also have direct democracy over the hardware they cooperatively own.
A consumer who owns sufficient Captial pays only the costs of production. He can't pay cost unless he doesn't yet have enough ownership. That consumer also has full control of how his material or data. Property ownership gives him the final say.
What if we, the consumers, could figure out how to collectively fund the purchase some of our own hardware that we hold in cooperation?
We could then use that hardware to host a [[Free Network Service]].
But we need to outline how to share hardware in cooperation or we won't reap those benefits. All users must have hardware freedom or the cooperation will be stifled.
This is similar to scheduling processes to run on computer hardware. Not everyone can use the network simultaneously. There must be allocation routines, and even auctions to slice that hardware up across time.
It is already commom for people to have joint property holdings. These co-owners already set policy over their divisible portions.
Private property can be used by a group to create a sort of pseudo-public property from within the current system. It is a sort of syndicalism.
Current public services (from traditional governments) tend to be vastly inefficient and usurps local control.
Current private services (from traditional corporations) is sometimes more efficient in some measure, but there is still the lack of local control and that problem called profit.
Treating "price above cost" (profit) as a consumer's investment keeps ownership distributed during growth.
Profit is highest when consumers have the least ownership.
Consumers pay more when they have no alternative, so profit should be treated as an investment from the consumer who paid it so that they slowly gain the alternative of real ownership. Thus, as the consumer funds the purchase of more Capital, the ownership of that growth becomes the real property of the very person who needed that increase in access in direct proportion to the amount that they were destitute.
What about outsiders? How does the service grow as the number of consumers increases? Consumers will always remain in local control if the profit they pay is treated as their own investment in more productive sources, and that ownership is maximally divisible.
Paying a price above cost proves there is not enough hardware to meet peak demand, so an overbid (price above cost) is used to fund the purchase of more of that kind of hardware.
Each consumer gains ownership needed to exert the control they need to be autonomous.
----
Sharing hardware between multiple owners is complicated.
Each user should own % of Capital needed to produce what they consume.
Each potential user buys real property in the multi-owner pool when they pay more than cost or buy early.
This ownership is also vote weight and rights of secession.
Each consuming owner can then rent space, time, mass and energy from the collective others.
Trading goods and services begets specialization.
Many artisans produce efficiently when sustained.
ANY and ALL production requires costly hardware.
It is this cost that we must collectively fund.
Example:
Mail and file storage
When 2 or more people try to share a physical thing
Each paid 50% of the initial cost, and 50% for recurring (electricity, maintenance).
Jul-19-2008: Posted to http://Autonomo.us/wiki/User:Patrick_Anderson
Hello all,
Just reporting in to let you know I'm here reading and thinking.
==My High-Level Questions
* A Network Service is one
just an example of a larger issue? (y)
* Is single-owner physical property (personal) pre-requisite to autonomy? (y)
* Is multi-owner physical property (public) pre-requisite to specialization? (y)
* Why od "Public Services" fail us now?
* Is the governance of most multi-owner physical property non-optimal? (y)
* When is multi-owner physical property 'public', when is it 'private'? (government, corporation)
* Could a group buy some multi-owner physical property as a 'private' holding, and then cooperatively offer it back to themselves as a 'public' service? (y)
* Is that syndicalism? (y)
* May such a group apply arbitrary policy to that multi-owner physical property?
* Will group members disagree on policy over multi-owner physical property? (y)
* Could we write a legally binding social contract which we could then apply to multi-owner physical property? (y)
* Is that contract a sort of local governance; a kind of self-inflicted law? (y)
* Can members split the multi-owner physical property to solve conflicts? (not always. Time Sharing helps.)
* Could this social contract be used to foster User Freedom in physical property? (y)
==More rambling
The GPL uses copyright law to enforce a license over virtual resources.
We could use property-rights law to enforce a contract over physical resources.
In both cases, the 'developer' must 'own' the 'sources' he supplies.
In the first case, the programmer creates that value through his own skilled labor applied to some [[Physical Sources]] (a Personal Computer, the electricity, the space that PC occupies).
In the second case, a collection of potential consumers fund the operation when they invest by pay early or when the pay more than cost.
It can be thought of as a "pre-purchase" plan, where each paying customer becomes a partial owner in Land and Capital used to grow the operation.
Whether it is a bank of high-speed servers to host some Web 3.0 thing, or an apple tree, all production requires [[Physical Sources]].
When consumer own capital in a cooperative manner. enough physical sources(, has enough ownership that all of his product is "at cost".
Anyone interested in writing a legally binding [[Social Contract]] we could apply to [[Physical Sources]]?
Jul-15-2008: CraigsList.org
Equistar Financial
Network solutions
Keeping System Working,
Interacting, Online, etc
Maintain networks—machines communicating with each other
Set up online forms
**What programming lanuages would you need to know?**
Commission based on internet hits
Real Estate investing
Bought and maintained rental properties, remodeled and sold for a profit
ABC Report
Jul-15-2008: Possible Titles
A
Bake
Break Fast
Chicken Fry
City Sovereign
Commune
Compound
Daily Bread
Dinner
Edible
Fever
Gift
God
Heal
Help
I
J
Kale
Labor Bank
Lunch
Monster Lawn
New Herb
NewBerg
NuHerban
O
Product Futures
Q
R
Shoe
Sod-Flip
Spring Sow
Sprite
Spritz
SubHerban
Suburban Salvation
Summer Seed
Supper
Supper Safety
T
Urban Sower
UrbanNewal
V
W
X
Yearly Supply, Yearly Harvest
Z
Skilled Labor:
B
Cook, Computer Repair
Diner, Disk {Archive, Undelete
E
F
G
Help
In
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
Reap
Software Development
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Jul-15-2008: trying to respnond to some mails about money
Some States issue their own money tokens.
Other States rent tokens banks.
United States rent tokens from the Banksters after buying it with bonds backed by physical property.
States issue tax tokens against labour services.
"'enforces the spread of commodity production. '"
Jul-14-2008:
So "peer money" is anything recognized as a subsitute for the value of physical items.
That sounds like a "Title Of Ownership", a Deed, a Pink Slip.
I've dreamt these Tickets would be specific to a *Object* - whether Good or Service.
But maye the titles should instead be
You could buy Product Futures
====Sample1
Item: Chicken Egg
Size: Dozen
Grade: A
Valid: Mon-Fri: 9am-9pm, ; Sat: 9am-11:59pm, Sun: 12am-11:59pm
Cycle: Weekly
====[[Sample1]]
Item: Bus Ride
Size: 1 person, 1 carry-on | BIKE FEE: [not paid]
Grade: Blue/Coach
Valid: Mon-Sun: 12am-12pm
Cycle: Daily
Think of it as winning an auction for excluding time
But what do you mean by "'whether issued by a state or not.'"
So a "peer money" would be backed by "Property Deed"
Germ Form is syndicalism 'booted' on private-property estates within a "Host Cell" - inside the "Mother State".
under a Social Contract
This Social Contract is enforced as a Terms of Operation over cooperative physical assets.
Deeds serving as both tickets for future product
that was written on the associated
could be the micro-state that births and operate within the containing state.
We purchase Land and Capital, then provide the Labor internally so that price meets cost, (assuming that might be desirable)
"'... "peer money", which I would call money that does not orginate with a self-declared state.'"
Sam, I am curious what you mean by "self-declared state", and why a SDS cannot host "peer money".
To me this definition of "state money"
really, really doesn't matter and the only distinction worth not to me is state vs. non-state currency.
Jul-13-2008: YourBackYardFarmer.com >>Your Backyard Farmer is an innovative approach to community supported agriculture through urban backyard farming. We create small sustainable organic method farms at your backdoor & provide fresh, in-season produce from
your farm to your fork.
Jul-13-2008: MyFarmSF.com >>Growing Vegetables. Growing Community. -Grow delicious vegetables locally in cities, -Connect people with their food, -Make food production secure and sustainable.
Jul-13-2008: Should the owner of a household most efficiently be the consumer of those ammentities, or those that work there?
Jul-13-2008: The Value of Use and Exchange
When Marx and Marxists use the word 'Value' alone they usually mean "Exchange Value".
"Exchange Value" == "Surplus Value" + "Use Value"
"Exchange Value" is also approximately equal to "Consumer Price"
"Surplus Value" == all forms of Profit, including "Interest beyond opportunity cost" and "Economic Rent"
"Use Value" == the real costs of production, including labor, wear on capital, exclusion, pollution
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics)
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_value
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value >>Marx himself regarded the reduction of profit, interest and rent income to surplus-value, and surplus value to surplus labour as one of his greatest theoretical achievements.
But this disregards WHY a consumer pays profit, interest or rent. A consumer doesn't ALWAYS pay profit, interest or rent.
Consumers pay cost when they own capital cooperatively.
Jul-12-2008: Blogs.Law.Harvard.edu/vrm >>Developing tools for customer independence and engagement with vendors
Jul-12-2008: I really need to get involved at Distributism.BlogSpot.com
Part of what I need prepared before then is an explanation of
Production can be commercial without being proprietary.
Trade can be in a market without being usurist.
We can cover costs without gouging the user.
Jul-12-2008: The Profit vs. Product Paradox
Jul-12-2008: I'm trying to get into words the importance of secession.
The majority should not be able to enforce their views onto the minority when the physical sources under consideration can be cleanly divided.
Jul-12-2008: In "First Draft of Letter To Vera Zasulich" at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/03/zasulich1.htm we read:
"'In dealing with the genesis of capitalist production I stated that it is founded on “the complete separation of the producer from the means of production” (p. 315, column 1, French edition of Capital)'"
Always we protect the act of working without regard to what should be the ultimate goal of consuming. There are at least two reasons for this:
1. Fat, lazy Americans are the epitome of consuming. Why should we build a system for them when they could hardly be deserving of it.
2. Work is the difficult side of things. It takes not just skill, but applied skill. It seems obvious we would want to reward this and nothing else.
But I catch even myself in strange wording that reveals an inaccurate framing of this problem. It is not that we are rewarding someone to consume, it is only that the means of production are most efficiently held by those that use those products.
Consumers pay. They pay with work, or they pay with some sort of money.
Of course we should reward workers. But all workers are also consumers. So we reward the act of work through an increased ability to consume.
Is a community a collection of consumers?
Consumer is such a dirty word today. Consumers are blamed for all the ills of Capitalism even though we quite late in the game, and mostly out of the loop of decisions.
Consumerism is a terrible name for a movement
Is it possible to fully reconsider our direction and purpose?
Can we throw out or at least suppress our assumptions and long held beliefs so we can begin with a clean slate?
Something has gone wrong with our economy. What is it? What, precisely, is the trouble with Capitalism? Instead of using words like 'evil' and 'greed' while blaming those that are currently on top, why not debug the system itself?
It's not the corporations, it's not the government, it's not the CEOs. It's no person or group, it is the system itself. And when I say 'system' I am talking about how we organize production and trade.
****
Why does our species fail in ways that other organisms don't?
Jul-11-2008:
The din of combative discourse keeps us from deep analysis. No matter the approach I take (though, of course I haven't tried everything), I cannot seem to break through so many pre-conceived notions.
I want to talk about what I can see as the trouble, but it is so large - spanning too many subjects for it to be available for consumption since attention span is now 140 characters or less.
If people want to do more than complain; if they are interested in deep analysis and the formulation of extended plans toward a solution, I wonder when or where they would be willing to discuss it at length.
I doubt anyone has the patience. Surely someone must, but I've never met them.
Attention is gone.
Reverence is mocked.
We have lost all hope.
We have already given up.
Jul-10-2008: http://www.archive.org/details/Joe_Cell_-_Two_Enthusiasts_1993-1996_VideoCameraRecordings
Jul-09-2008: Posted to http://groups.google.com/group/esa-discuss/post?hl=en
Hello all,
I am a self-taught economics researcher interested in discussing an alternate interpretation of the income called 'profit'.
As http://EconomicScience.org is down, I cannot determine if such a discussion is welcome here or not.
Please let me know:
Would this group be interested in reconsidering the goal of keeping price above cost, or is the goal of profit an unconditional precondition.
Thanks in advance,
Patrick Anderson
http://EcoComics.org
Joined Identi.ca mostly to determine the supposed 'openness' of it.
FirstMonday.org/issues/issue11_9/berry >>The project of ‘free culture’ is committed to the creation of a cultural space, rather like the ‘public domain’, seeking to complement/replace that of proprietary cultural commodities and privatized meaning. This has been given a new impetus with the birth of the Creative Commons. This organization has sought to introduce cultural producers across the world to the possibilities of sharing, co–operation and commons–based peer–production by creating a set of interwoven licenses for creators to append to their artwork, music and text. In this paper, we chart the connections between this movement and the early Free Software and Open Source movements and question whether underlying assumptions that are ignored or de–politicized are a threat to the very free culture that the project purports to save. We then move to suggest a new discursive project linked to notions of radical democracy.
JoeCell.Cloud.ProHosting.com >>This is a collection of videos available on the internet, related to a free energy device called the 'Joe Cell'.
ByronNewEnergy.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frances-moore-lappe/just-whos-doing-the-hoard_b_110107.html >>Thus, our hunger crisis is actually a democracy crisis. Hunger can be eliminated only as we remove the influence of concentrated wealth over public choices and ensure the ongoing, healthy distribution of power. The sooner we start recasting the crisis thusly, the sooner we'll all be able to thrive.
NOAANews.NOAA.gov/stories/s798b.htm
Finally subscribed to the Open Knowledge Foundation list at http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Also subscribed to OpenHardwareFoundation.org/pipermail/ohf-licenses_openhardwarefoundation.org
Also http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
And http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-research
Renamed the "Personal Sovereignty Foundation" to the "Consumer Capital Cooperative"
[Previous: diary-jun-2008]