Related: diary
Jul-31-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Subject: Why do we not choose Permaculture?
I am trying to find out why our species has decided to move so very far away from local sufficiency toward a dangerous dependecy upon centralized production.
We have the Land, Water and willing Workers, so what is the problem?
Why don't we grow Almonds, Avocados and Olives, in our cities (where climates allow)?
Why are there not grape vines, berry bushes and spice plants in all the places we installed unproductive species?
I think there are some logistic problems we have overlooked and am trying to enumerate them so each can be addressed.
Please respond if any sound wrong or to add those that are missing.
* GOVERNMENTS
1.) Taxation as our system of funding public works requires everyone in that jurisdiction pay for every project even if they are not interested. It is the primary cause of the "Tyranny of the Majority".
2.) There are social mores against governments being truly productive. Some may think food should be a public service, but those with enough would not agree - mostly because of problem #1.
3.) Even if a government were to attempt permaculture, the representatives would likely not see the benefits of owning the equipment and hiring the workers, and so would hire a private business to do the work anyway - and so we, the taxpayers who funded the project would likely be required to *buy* the products back from ourselves thereby being exposed to paying profit to those owners and would also loose the high-level control such as if subgroups wanted to avoid herbicides/pesticides, etc.
* BUSINESSES
1.) Most businesses view everything in terms of Profit, so would not care about increasing local resilience but would instead weigh the decision on how much they could overcharge the customer.
2.) The question would viewed as a choice as to whether the business should increase their diversity. Most owners would likely find it a silly proposition as they see agriculture as a strictly separate occupation that has nothing to do with their core goals.
* INDIVIDUALS
1.) The owner does not have the time and skill to maintain these more sensitive organisms and the complex ecosystem they should enjoy.
2.) The owner does not have the time and skill and equipment to harvest, process and store those products.
3.) There is usually "too much" of each of those products for a single owner, and so much of the harvest goes to waste, causing logistic problems of 'mess' and also some psychological trauma.
Jul-30-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Subject: free lunch?
Rough draft of Stage0 toward Citizen Owned Production
Most every home and business owner dedicates Land, Water, Tools and Labor tending non-productive plants while productive plants are
shunned because:
1.) The owner does not have the time and skill to maintain these more sensitive organisms and the complex ecosystem they should enjoy.
2.) The owner does not have the time and skill and equipment to harvest, process and store those products.
3.) There is usually "too much" of each of those products for a single owner, and so much of the harvest goes to waste, causing logistic problems of 'mess' and also some psychological trauma.
But there are many people in need of food that *do* have the time and skills we need.
How to pair them up? And how to make it worth the owners' trouble?
We do this by noticing the profound value in the product itself.
We strike a deal between owners and workers thus:
A.) We will install beautiful yet productive plants for the same price as non-productive plants.
B.) We will optionally contract with you to tend those plants and harvest the products in perpetutity at NO COST to you except we will retain some % of that harvest as payment.
C.) We will optionally process and store your % at NO COST to you except we will retain some further % of that harvest as payment.
D.) We will optionally prepare your % into advanced solutions, even fully prepared meals at NO COST to you except we will retain some % further of that harvest as payment.
For example, if the owner allows us to plant 4 Pecan trees, he can receive 4 bushels of unshelled Pecans, or 2 bushels of shelled Pecans, or 1 bushel of shelled Pecans stored by us, or 8 Pecan pies, or 4 pecan pies stored by us, or 2 fancy pecan-chicken dinners, etc.
The owners want landscaping; we will give them permascaping.
But instead of a one-time installation that the owners must then fret about, we continue service of those organisms in perpetuity and manage the outputs to whatever degree those owners decide.
Jul-30-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Subject: Debugging Source Freedom (was: Patrick Andersons proposal)
Matt wrote:
> how do you translate those profits to the community
> in a way that shows their 'investment'.
Who do you mean when you say "their investment"?
I claim profit must be treated as *payer* investment.
I say a Consumer paying a Price above Cost will be making an investment - but a special kind of investment that pays in *product* instead of profit.
I don't want the faceless 'community' to take control of that investment - for then it will be thrown into a slush fund controlled by some committee that we will then be fighting to "do the right thing" just as we already do with almost any form of government we currently face.
> In solving that problem, solves another problem;
> the voting system for what to do with that profit.
If profit is treated as I suggest, then voting can be accomplished simply by asserting your rights in property ownership. In other words, if you own 21% of a roto-tiller, then you have 21% of the votes over that machine.
Even though I hope we can make a situation that looks and feels like a 'commons', I think it is important that we allow individuals and sub-groups to act mostly independent of that conglomerate so the "Tyranny of the Majority" can be kept under control. I don't want anyone without ownership in my roto-tiller to be able to say how often I must change the oil, etc.
> The only abuse I can think of in this system so
> far is example:
> two single moms bartering babysitting services
> between each other at a ridiculous hourly rate
> to generate more 'voting' points.
I'm saying we won't have any such problems if we notice the direct connection between funding and voting and then allow people to fund only when they want that service.
Current taxation systems take our funds (votes) early on and then asks some 'representatives' to try doling them out in some 'fair' manner which can never have the fine-grained control that I describe and so we usually pay for all kinds of projects that we would otherwise never pay for.
Jul-29-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
> danny jp wrote:
>> A P2P network cannot by definition jointly own a house.
By definition?
Who has the authority to define what a P2P Network can and cannot do?
Within the context of P2P, what are 'definitions', and what is 'authority'?
Could Peers ever define terms in a P2P manner?
Interesting... one of the central problems we face in collaboration is the trouble we have agreeing on the definition of terms.
>> The house would have to be split up into shares
>> managed in a trust, and then individual nodes
>> would own or owe a given number of such units.
By what reasoning do you claim the house *must* be managed as you are describing?
Maybe you are right, but maybe you are wrong, and maybe there are many other organizational forms that would work with similar degrees of success.
>> In this case the trust manager either has to have
>> a link with each joint owner, (the trust manager
>> owns the house as an asset and 'owes' the other
>> nodes their share).
The details of how co-ownership (some would say 'sharing') of property should be handled is at the very heart of the discussion of why corporations and governments get it wrong, and how we, the people, need to do it differently.
Here are some of the ways people currently choose to share land and buildings.
Which would you say is closest to your vision of the best way to organize co-ownership in a P2P network?:
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_Estate
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Condop
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_club
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_ownership
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_society
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_organization
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenancy
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeshare
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association
>> Also, how do you presume the various nodes managed
>> to get together to 'jointly' own the house in the
>> first place?
I have been working on this problem lately, and hope to soon make a presentation showing how we can begin by:
0.) Determine the minimum complexity of a network (or you might say 'community') needed to host developers who can only pay with "Commitments to Work".
This minimum complexity is a "Basic Outcome" needed to keep these workers sustained physically without paying interest or profit outside of that community.
The inescapable parts I have identified include: housing/storage, food/drugs, water/sanitation.
The absolute bare-bones startup scenario could provide temporary housing/storage with tents and food/drugs through bulk-purchase until we have the time to build the houses and install the organisms.
1.) Organize middle-class consumers to prepay with "Outside Money" to buy the Land, Water, Tools, etc. needed to begin. These investors will usually be paid with a single product.
For example, consumers who prepay for raw milk will actually be investing in the Milk Cattle, Land, Water-Rights, buildings, etc. needed to 'host' that production and will be 'paid' when they receive their portion of that product each day or week.
2.) Attract skilled workers to sign contracts of "Commitment to Work" to supply the labor needed to begin. These investors will usually be paid with a variety of the products available within the community to cover all of their physical needs.
The payments to these investors in both cases will come from the outputs of the production that takes place within that network.
So a worker might commit to work milking cattle while recieving basic meals, shelter, etc. as his return.
Jul-29-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Alex Rollin wrote:
> I wondered if others would agree that
> bilateral and multilateral trust can
> occur in a P2P Network and that this
> would by definition form a Commons
> when the trust is multilateral.
Even though the word "multilateral" might be interpreted as either of: one-to-many, many-to-one or many-to-many, it made me think more about "multi-owner", or what I've been thinking of as "P2P Clustering" and how many facets of an economy are out of reach until a sort of "Critical Mass" is reached.
So we 'trust' banks and corporations and governments, even when they treat us badly, because ... well for many reasons that I will try to enumerate in another post.
On a somewhat unrelated note:
> danny jp wrote:
>> the reason we use public debt as outside money
>> is that it is easier to trust taxpayers to meet future
>> commitments (since they can be compelled to pay)
>> than it is a given private bank.
This (probably accidentally) implies we would not trust "outside money" unless it were debt-based.
I claim the trust comes from the clustering alone which in turn grants the "right by might" authority to enforce that social-contract.
This will work for most any type of money - whether it is based on debt, is simply fiat, is backed by precious metals, is backed by commodities, or (my preference) is backed by a combination of the Title over the "Physical Sources" plus a legally-binding "Labor Bond" from a qualified worker or, (even better), from a group of skilled workers who "Commit to Apply the Skills" needed to produce some *future* good.
Jul-27-2010: Noticed CommunityTools.info
Jul-27-2010: Not yet Posted to http://sharewiki.org/en/Shareful_Invitation/Case_Studies/Consumable_Goods
Food, drugs, soaps, lotions, cosmetics are Consumable Goods, so to share is to allow permanent and exclusive access to some portion.
There are real costs involved in the production of Consumables.
We must purchase Land, Tools, Water-Rights and maybe Fuel to begin agriculture.
We must purchase Seeds, Spores and Eggs needed to 'innoculate' the Land and Water.
We must tend and adjust this ecosystem until it can sustain itself.
We must carefully and 'sustainably' harvest parts of the outputs of that ecosystem.
We must process those outputs by jarring, drying, etc.
processing (drying, bottling, etc.), storing (root cellar), and preparing (cooking), presenting (waitress), and cleanup (dish washing and securing any left-overs).
Land needed for each step.
Tools needed for each step.
obtaining, preparing
Access: External taxes or uncontrollable alien fees or rent.
Exclude: The cost of disallowing other solutions in the same space or time, or the costs of disallowing other users.
Invest: Capital is expensive, and must be purchased or constructed. Some Consumers are willing and able to pre-pay.
Insure: Done once we have gathered the "replacement cost".
Install: tools, materials, labor
Maintain: tools, materials, labor
Operate: tools, materials, labor
Pollute: noise, smell, poison
Risk: Any attempt at production may fail
Secure: locks, cameras, labor
Store: size, shelter, temperature, sun, soil, ventilation, bedding, labor
Work: This is calculated as "wage" when working for another.
We *do* collect profit from him, but use that overpayment to invest *for* him. So if he paid $5 for a hamburger that only cost us $3.75 to deliver, Then we would be investing that $1.25 by purchasing wheat fields (for the bun), tomato fields (tomatoes and ketchup), spice fields, beef cattle, etc. and all the tools and wages needed to turn those sources into future products - so he incrementally gains ownership to such a degree that he finally co-owns enough of the entire tree of production for that product that he has maximized control and minimumized price (price will reach cost).
Jul-27-2010: Not yet Posted to http://sharewiki.org/en/Shareful_Invitation/Case_Studies/Durable_Goods
Most tools are Durable Goods, so to share is to schedule temporary and usually exclusive access to the entire machine across some amount of time.
One way to view the problem is to consider this a matter of 'utilization'. We want to keep the machine as 'busy' as possible with as few 'conflicts' in scheduling as possible so it is worth the initial investment, and so those users 'satisfied' - making room for even more users.
Some tools are more easily scheduled than others because of differences in 'predictability' and also from difference in 'priority'.
* Needing the use of an ambulance is very difficult to predict and very high priority.
* Needing the use of a sewer snake is very difficult to predict but only slightly high priority.
* Needing the use of a concrete saw to solve a long-standing problem with your side-walk very easy to predict and very low priority.
These savings are often overlooked as being the result of not paying Wages to workers, but that work must be done either way, and we know the Rental agency or the Capitalist employer enjoys Price above Cost while calculating Wages as a Cost, so where is the confusion?
For example: Let's say a for-profit business has hired employees to go door-to-door offering to roto-till a garden patch.
The business owner offers the service for some fee - say $1 per square meter while paying the employee operating the tiller say $10 per hour.
The owner has other costs such as management, initial investment,
gasoline, oil, replacing parts, storage, insurance, and maybe many
others.
But we know he is charging more that these costs if he
is reporting a profit - for that is the definition of profit =
"price above cost".
Now let's look at what happens when the owners of the
Source (the tiller) are also the consumers of the outputs
(the tilled ground): They must pay all the same costs as
the Capitalist, including Wages to the operator and
mechanics, but they wouldn't be paying the extra amount
called Profit - for who could they possibly pay it to?
When the Sources are Consumer-Owned, they could probably pay the
Workers slightly more (say $12 per hour) and *still* pay less since
they wouldn't be paying the unnecessary burden of Profit.
There is real work involved in the act of organization,
but that cost (wages to management) must be paid
either way.
So what is keeping us from organizing and cooperatively
owning machines, buildings, even land?
I think part of the problem is a long-standing belief that
whoever possesses the skills to operate those machines
should be the owners.
But doesn't the above argument show that efficiency
(as in the lowest price) comes when ownership is in
the hands of those that consume the final output?
Another part of the problem is in figuring out how those
resources should be shared among the owners.
It is a difficult, sticky situation that most people would
rather just avoid altogether because of the forecasted
in-fighting they perceive would occur.
It seems such a group could write some 'rules' about
how to schedule access, and how much each individual
must compensate the others for any extra wear or exclusion
they cause.
I see such a contract, if 'properly' written, would be the only
thing our society needs to begin down the road of
peace and abundance.
A single machine can be shared among a finite number
of people. As the number of consumers attempting to
utilize the machine increases, at some point it will be
impossible to fullfill those requests with a single machine.
If the collective owners have the time-sharing of that
machine setup so that anyone wanting to rent it are
bidding against each other, then more time slots will be filled.
People that want to rent close to 'cost', and are willing to lose some
sleep will rent at 2am, while other people will be willing to "fight
it out" for a slot at 12 noon in a bid war.
As the dueling bidders raise their own price for that time
slot, they are *proving* that the current number of machines cannot
fill peak demand, and - since that "price above cost" will be invested
for the winning bidder toward buying ANOTHER machine, the 'system'
should be self-stablizing as those extra payments will be invested
toward another machine until the number of machines is sufficient to
cover the needs of that community.
Furthermore, each sub-community that develops around each of those
machines can then secede from the whole if they decide to treat their
new machine in a different manner (say changing the oil more often).
Cooperative consumer ownership is quite rare today, but there are a
few cases where a group of friends wanting a private airplane make a
"shared investment", and then rent the plane from the collective
others whenever they want to use it. None of those people need the
ability to fly themselves, they can just hire a pilot and pay that
wage as a cost while still saving money by not paying profit.
Another example is shared ownership of a vacation house. The
for-profit "Time Share" industry has grown around that desire, but I'm
referring to the less common case when a private group of people buy a
house that they share amongst themselves in whatever way they see fit.
I choose to apply the contract to that Physical Source and begin renting it to others for a price that is higher that my real costs of: investment, maintenance (oil, fuel, wear parts), storage, wages to any workers I had to pay, wages to myself for managing it all, etc.
Since I am collecting profit, and since I am choosing to apply the contract, I must save those overpayments until I have enough to invest for all the people that overpaid to rent the tiller during that round of growth.
In most cases, current owners will not be 'selling' any of their current holdings, and so the overpaying users will usually be paying toward the purchase of *more* Physical Sources.
Let's say, after a year or so there is finally enough money in the 'payer-fund' to buy another tiller.
It is a little unclear to me what we should do right here.
On the one hand it makes some sense to let the current owners invest the money and then release the fractional-titles to that Physical Source to the group of payers.
The current owners are generally more informed about what would be the best investment in that field, but it seems unfair and very wrong to not involve the end-user when it is his freedom we are trying to protect...
This needs to be outlined more clearly and may need to be part of the contract.
So, even though I think the current owners would probably be making the investments, the more important point is that those original payers of profit become the real property title holders of that new Physical Source.
To answer your question more directly: I would not be 'expanding' my own holdings, but would instead be acting a sort of "growth conduit" for those who do not yet have sufficient ownership.
> The question is, how does selling me a share affect the value
> of everyone else's share?
Where you say "selling me a share" I will rewrite "my paying of profit". So your question becomes:
> how does my paying of profit affect the value of everyone else's share?
When you pay a price above cost, that overpayment is held with the overpayments of many other users.
After there are sufficient funds to move forward, those profits become your real ownership in more Physical Sources such as a new farm or another factory.
You are not taking any value from anyone else, you are funding your own growth through the collective purchase of the material means of production needed to meet your objectives.
> Suppose there are a million shares
> owned by various people, and the farm sells me one share.
It is probably confusing to think of this in terms of traditional 'shares' because what I'm talking about it a % of real ownership shared among *only that group of payers*.
There are no committees or board-members or any such bureaucracy unless that individual group decides they want to subject themselves to such a system of rule. Very large groups may find some need for variations of such self-imposed structure.
Groups of owners using the contract are *fully independent* of each other. Some owners will decide they want the oil changed in their tiller every 200 hrs, while another group may decide they will do it every 300 hrs.
> Does that mean that there are now 1,000,0001 shares owned,
> and everyone else's share has gone down a little in value?
> Or do they get a dividend?
If by 'dividend' you mean "will the current owners receive some of the profit as a reward?" then the answer is 'no'.
Profit is treated as an investment from the user who paid it because profit measures a payer's lack of property.
----
(*) THE CONTRACT is the (as yet incomplete) legally-binding "Terms of Operation" that property owners can choose to apply to their own Physical Sources.
(**) When there is just 1 owner, profit is easily 'hidden' when the owner pays himself excessive wages which takes from the pool that would have otherwise been labeled profit. This ability diminishes as ownership is multiplexed, since the other owners will then demand such jobs be put 'on the market' to lower their costs.
Jul-27-2010: Not yet Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Subject: Risks and Advantages in Property Ownership
Jul-24-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> That is the basis of a barter economy because no one
> can own every mode of production for their many demands.
> It would lead to massive and instantaneous poverty.
Are you saying diversified ownership requires barter?
Why do "mutual funds" not cause this problem?
Jul-24-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures Sharing 'files' is only the tip of the hideous iceberg.
Disallowing the copying of lifeforms and medicines makes this new imperialism much more immediately and obviously against the original goals of society.
This disgusting tyranny is a result of inverted priorities caused by the homicidal and even eventually suicidal direction we follow as we attempt to keep Price above Cost.
For as long as we are unwilling to question the reason for incorporation and the meaning of this value called 'Profit' will we be confused about why our efforts can never address the problems they pretend to want solved.
To solve any problem in any permanent fashion is to destroy Profit which is only a good thing when the initial investors are those who intend to benefit from the results of that production.
And such a system can only be held in place if any profit collected from latecomers is treated as an investment from those payers so they become owners as well - protecting them from paying tribute to knights such as Bill Gates.
Jul-22-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> Wheat is going to be under pressure because it is a
> hot wet summer in the US...so volumes will again be high.
Hey Ryan,
Thanks for the response.
We need to question our long-standing assumption about how markets must work.
When you say wheat will be "under pressure" because of "high volumes" you are saying Prices go down as Supply goes up.
This is the Econ 101 argument that Abundance is Bad and Scarcity is Good because of how Supply reduces Demand.
It is assumed that we must keep Prices above Cost because of our previous assumption that the Means of Production (the farms for example) are not owned by the Consumers who need that product.
But let's open our minds to allow a new way of thinking about this.
Imagine 10,000 Consumers buy a large wheat farm from a farmer who is going bankrupt. They re-hire that same farmer and his employees to continue working there.
At the end of the season the Owners/Consumers do not buy the wheat from themselves (this is different from a co-op), but instead *already* own the product as a side-effect of their ownership in the Land and Tools.
Overproduction is not a problem in this model. These Owners don't need to destroy the grain or worry about prices at all because they are not even 'playing' in that arena.
They can dump the excess by selling it 'at-cost' or even by giving it away to the poor if they like, for it does them no harm.
This Mode of Production does not promote Scarcity because the reward for investment is the Product itself instead of trying to keep Price and Cost during the usual post-facto exchange of the goods.
This approach is the only form of organization I have found that does not otherwise *require* scarcity be perpetuated.
Jul-22-2010: Posted to Devinder-Sharma.BlogSpot.com and ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Devinder Sharma wrote:
> In 2008, wheat production was the highest.
> There was therefore no reason why wheat
> prices should have soared to a record level.
No reason? I'll give you the reasons:
0.) For-Profit Corporations care nothing about Product except as a vehicle for extracting Profit during the exchange of finished goods.
1.) Profit requires Scarcity and scarcity is held in place initially by withholding access to the finished products and more completely by withholding access to the *Sources* of those products.
2.) Our ignorant treatment of Profit as though it were a reward for the current owners incents those owners to make decisions and write legislation that limits or destroys production to even further increase Profit. It is a dangerous positive-feedback loop.
3.) We can never fully solve the problems of society using such a model, for to do so would destroy the only reason for those entities to exist - to keep Price above Cost.
Jul-20-2010: Reading MuniNetworks.org/sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/breaking-bb-monopoly.pdf
Jul-20-2010: ClueGroup.com >>The Community Land Use and Economics (CLUE) Group is a specialized consulting firm that helps communities create vibrant, dynamic downtowns and neighborhoods. We help local and state governments, developers, and nonprofits design innovative downtown economic development strategies, cultivate independent businesses, recycle historic buildings, attract young talent, strengthen downtown management programs, and craft planning and land use tools that mitigate sprawl and stimulate town center development.
Jul-20-2010: Noticed CommunityBusinesses.BlogSpot.com >>A resource companion to "Community-Owned Businesses: How Communities Become Entrepreneurs" (Main Street Now, April 2010).
Jul-20-2010: Noticed NewRules.org >>
Jul-20-2010: Posted to Cloud-Computing-Use-Cases@GoogleGroups.com
Adam Purkiss wrote:
> As a free software supporter and a cloud computing enthusiast I was
> particularly concerned with Richard Stallman's post declaring
> essentially that SaaS was something to be avoided altogether in order to
> preserve our freedoms. He states "SaaS always subjects you to the power
> of the server operator, and the only remedy is, Don't use SaaS! Don't
> use someone else's server to do your own computing on data provided by
> you."
Hi Adam,
I have been following the Free Software Foundation and studying the social and economic effects of the GNU GPL since around 1991.
I was also saddened by the absolute terms used by RMS to condemn the sharing of hardware.
The solution to this problem requires a deep reconsideration of why and how we currently organize to share.
Envision a Cloud which is fully funded, owned and controlled by the *Users* of that network.
Here's a rough sketch of the idea:
1.) Approach thousands of potential Users with an agreement to prepay for such access.
2.) Their prepayment is used to purchase the physical hardware and hire workers to begin production.
3.) These User-Investors are now co-owners of this cloud which they control in some 'collective' or 'cooperative' manner enforced through a legally-binding Contract similar in purpose to a "Tennancy in Common Agreement". The details of this may be quite complicated.
4.) This, as described, should be sufficient to protect User Freedom in the Cloud, but is not very interesting as just another private cloud.
5.) When these groups of User-Owners begin allowing non-owners to use these Cloud Services there is potential for abuse and overpricing.
6.) Because of this, the Contract must require any Profit be treated as an Investment from the User who paid it into more physical hardware - so the Freedom of ALL Users approaches 'complete' as their ownership approaches 'sufficient'.
Jul-20-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
So what human beings are issuing currency, and how hard is that work?
Remember, issuance is not printing bills or minting coins - those are done by the Mint.
You'll need a computer terminal and the ability to occasionally enter very large numbers.
All Income Tax in the US is not enough to cover even just the *Interest* on these loans.
Is there no chance this could be done a little more efficiently?
I would certainly be willing to hold down the '0' key for a Wage much less than all the Income Taxes paid by all citizens of the US.
I don't understand the argument that Private Corporations will do a better job than a Compromised Government when the Private Corporations are the *source* of these compromises.
Jul-19-2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_society
Jul-19-2010: Joined Dev.FlowPlace.org
Jul-16-2010: Watching "The Secret of Oz" trailer at http://TheMoneyMasters.com/mm and full film at http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTcyMjM1MjE2.html
Jul-16-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Subject: Bonds VS Bills
Thomas Edison wrote:
> If our Nation can issue a dollar bond,
> it can issue a dollar bill.
> The element that makes the bond good
> also makes the bill good.
> The difference between the bond and the bill
> lets money brokers [bankers] collect twice
> the amount of the bond plus interest.
> Whereas the bill [currency] pays nobody but those
> who contribute directly in some useful way.
> The People are the basis for government credit.
> Why then cannot the People have the benefit of their
> own credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency,
> instead of bankers receiving the People's credit
> in interest bearing bonds?
> It is absurd to say that our country can issue 30 million
> dollars in bonds and not 30 million dollars in currency!
> Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens
> the usurers and the other helps the People!
Will P2P Money be borrowed from debtors or created by peers?
Jul-16-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Subject: What is the Origin of our Money Supply?
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> borrow some money based on collateral or your capacity to repay > (e.g. from income)...and voila...you've created money!
I understand the rules of partial-reserve banking cause even more money to be created when I enter into a debt.
But that transaction cannot occur unless there was some 'base' money to begin with - the 'reserve'.
I think it is called M0. Who creates the M0 supply?
I'm trying to find out where our money comes from *originally*.
You may answer "a bank". But then where did *they* get it from?
Someone or some institution is declaring (by fiat) that money into existence, so *who* or *what* has that authority?
It is like a variation the game of Monopoly(R) where the person "playing the banker" has an infinite supply of money that he can create for himself whenever he likes without ever going into debt and yet all the other players must borrow from him.
I'm not trying to question the morality of any banker as a person, I'm trying to understand the strategy that has nations enter into massive debt when it seems it could easily be avoided if those nations would simply choose to issue M0 for themselves.
But since the question "Why do our nations borrow" is probably too vast, I simplified to "What is the Origin of our Money Supply"?
Jul-16-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Subject: Who Issues the Money that National Governments then Borrow?
Anyone know any of the privileged few humans with authority to Issue Money out of thin air?
This has got to be the best job on earth!
Those issuers often buy bonds backed by "Federal Land" within each nation - so whenever a nation defaults on it's "National Debt", those issuers become the new property owners of that country!
This is a much easier way to conquer than going to war. Just trick the island next to you into NOT issuing their own money, then get them into debt by issuing money backed by nothing which you then borrow to them! Genius!
Note, this 'money' is not the physical coins or paper notes, but simply declarations of value = 'fiat' made by ... WHO? *Who* is declaring this value, and *why* do national governments borrowing it from these people instead of issuing it for the people that comprise that nation?
There is never any reason for any government or group (at the State, County, City, even Community level) to be in debt, because they could always just issue Money for themselves, but the won't. Weird.
Jul-15-2010: Some Utah Food CoOps: FoodCo-Op.net, BountifulBaskets.org, Click-2-Pick.com
Jul-15-2010: Last Saturday I watched http://YouTube.com/watch?v=07REkvATHb8 >>Jordan Maxwell - The Dawn of a New Day (2009)
He is likely wrong about some things, but I enjoy his original research and his attempts at weaving a holistic view of our past against the current situation.
In this work he claims the Communist idea of the "Working-Class rising against the Owning-Class" has been standardized as iconographic depiction of the SUN rising - usually from behind mountains and/or in variations of the phrase "New Day Dawning".
The phrase has most recently been used by both Obama and Hillary Clinton in their campaigns which also include obvious SUN symbology.
Later that day while at the local used-goods store I was looking through the VHS movies and noticed a newer version of "Animal Farm" ( IMDB.com/title/tt0204824 ). One aspect of this story is the Animals depicting the Working-Class rise against the Farmer representing the Owning-Class.
To my great surprise, the front of the sleeve on the movie reads: "There's a NEW DAY DAWNING on the farm."
What does this mean? Why and how does such a phrase appear so often? Who is in control of such choices?
Jul-14-2010: Joined AbundanceLeague.org
Jul-14-2010: Joined WiserEarth.org
Jul-14-2010: Joined SocialStartupLabs.org
Jul-14-2010: Joined ShareWiki.org
Jul-13-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> Real income must come from someone consuming.
I guess you mean "predatory income".
Real, actual income is Product, not Profit.
A lone islander cannot increase value by consuming.
It is just the opposite. Consuming a coconut is a *decrease* in total value.
We will never be able to make sense of our world while using this sort of upside-down thinking.
We must make a full reconsideration of the goals of production. We must move away from the idea that production is for the purpose of preying upon those that do not yet have ownership in the Physical Sources of those outputs.
To believe Profit must be perpetuated is to also believe Poverty is a requirement that must never be resolved - for Profit requires Scarcity and Scarcity is the foundation of Poverty.
Jul-13-2010: What are the basic features of Citizen Ownership?
Let's consider the overly-simple case of 1 person:
What is the meaning concepts such as Cost, Profit, Insurance, Money?
Jul-12-2010: Posted to a private list
Stephen Hinton (of Eco-Unit.AVBP.net) wrote:
> I am having a bit of trouble getting into the P2P stuff it seems I don't
> have enough branches to hang the insight onto. Maybe a chat would help...
>
I'm trying to simplify my approach, but for now will give feedback to the "KEY COMPONENTS" list at http://Eco-Unit.AVBP.net
* A group, committed though co-ownership or contract, that shares resources to produce food, water, accommodation and in some cases work.
This is also what I envision.
I believe the contract must enforce at least the following: "Profit is treated as an Investment from the Consumer who paid it."
I imagine Consumers pre-paying for products such as housing, organic foods, etc. This money will be used to buy the Land and Tools to begin and those Consumers will be the co-owners of those Means of Production.
* A settlement where farming, living, recycling and energy production are contained in one geographic location
Yes, that sounds good.
* Living accommodation that is a long term investment
When I use the word 'Investment' I am talking about taking risk and owning for the purpose of receiving "at cost" Product. The approach I take cannot treat Profit as a reward for the current owners because it must instead be treated as an Investment from the Consumer who paid it.
See http://patware.FreeShell.org/faq.htm for a fairly good overview.
Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Jul-12-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Daniel Araya wrote:
> 1. I believe free market capitalism has largely proved the happiest time for
> humans by far.
Would you say Capitalism is perfect?
If not, what would you say is wrong with it, and how are those problems held in place?
> 2. I believe in governments regulating markets.
This proves the system is unable to achieve it's own goals.
It's like a strange kernel [of a computer Operating System] that cannot schedule and allocate resources without being watched and adjusted by a group of 'representative' processes.
This is a very dangerous approach because of how our mistreatment of Profit concentrates wealth (and therefore resources) into the hands of a few otherwise 'normal' processes and how that wealth is then used to further influence the kernel by hiring lobbyists to influence the 'representative' processes and even writing legislation (kernel-level code) that permanently changes the system in their favor.
> 5. Technology has made labour and learning problematic.
By 'problematic' do you mean 'easier'?
> 6. Because of 5, the credit/debt economy of the world is now broken.
Would you say humans cannot be happy unless they are in debt?
Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Jul-08-2010: Working on a better title and description of Citizen Ownership.
Jul-08-2010: Posted to Cloud-Computing-Use-Cases@GoogleGroups.com
Tom Hanan wrote:
> Again there is very little motivation on the part of the established service
> providers to transition to a model that will eventually also do away with
> contractual lock in clauses and agreements. These revenue preserving clauses
> / agreements are the backbone of most service providers large and small.
Yes, *except* in the special case of "User Owned" clouds. (also known as "Consumer Owned", "Customer Owned" and "Payer Owned").
When a group of Users invest for their own purposes to collectively own a cloud, then there is no conflict between vendor and customer, for they are one and the same!
There is also no drive to preserve revenue - in fact there is no such thing as revenue because the Users pay only for the real Costs of service (including wages of course).
The only conflicts that occur are between the entire group itself and individuals (or subgroups) within the group.
Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Jul-07-2010: Posted to econowmix
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> what happens if we set up in such a model, an algorithm
> where users become "altruists", and may for example "choose
> to give up their priority" ?
Priority is created when the Sources of production are "available to" (or you might say "the property of") only a subset of those who use the outputs (Objectives) of that production.
Under those conditions the Price of access can be held above the true Costs of that access. That difference is, of course, Profit.
Profit ceases to exist when all users have sufficient ownership in the Physical Sources of the Objectives they seek.
For example, if every user who wanted to eat Salmon had enough ownership in the land, water rights, buildings and tools needed to create more Salmon, then each of those users would have to pay all the costs of production - including any wages for work they did not do themselves - but would not pay profit because they would not *buy* cleaned and packaged Salmon at the end of the season, but would own it already as a "side effect" of their owning the Physical Sources of that Objective.
> And when applied to "property" definitions, how to prevent
> giving up of property in a system/algorithm, of being taken
> over by a non altruistic property meme ?
My sort of "brute force" approach to this problem is to treat all Price above Cost (Profit) as though it were an investment from the Consumer who paid it. You might also think of it as a sort of pre-payment that was somewhat coerced from the Payer as a result of his lacking ownership in the Physical Sources.
> Is this what is done through a GPL license ?
Yes, this occurs when the GNU GPL requires the provider (who has priority over the receiver) allow that receiver at-cost access to the Virtual Sources whenever he allows access to the finished Objective (the binary object files).
> But how to apply it to scarce resources ? How to handle concurrency issues
> in altruistic modes of property ?
One way is to create a legally binding "Social Contract" that owners may may apply to Physical Sources stating that all Profit must be treated as Payer investment. Such an enterprise should also be able to qualify as "non-profit" since non-profits already charge price above cost but then try to hide those funds by overpaying high-ranking officials and generally growing the business while retaining ownership of that growth for themselves - which only further increases their priority.
Another example where Physical Sources are being rented may help clarify why this negative-feedback loop is so effective.
Let's say two or more users are interested in using the 'common' roto-tiller.
They both arrive at the storage area at noon expecting to rent the machine.
They understand that *some* rent must be paid for all of the costs of initial investment, recurring maintenance, storage, security, insurance, etc. These are all true Costs, and so there is no 'priority' yet being displayed.
But since there is a scheduling conflict, we need a way to resolve who should receive priority.
If we arrange for the machine to enter auction whenever there is a conflict, the users may bid against each other causing them to voluntarily raise the Price above Cost and create the value called 'Profit'.
If one of the users does not want to bid, but is willing to instead wait for the other user, then he voluntarily gives-up priority because he decides immediate access is not "worth it".
But if the users decide that is not OK, then the bidding begins which *proves* the current amount of Physical Sources (the number of roto-tillers) is insufficient to meet "peak demand".
The user who wins the auction will pay a Price above Cost which becomes his investment toward the purchase of yet more Physical Sources (another roto-tiller) which means growth is caused 'naturally' by insufficient supply.
> I guess this leads to individual choices. Emergent governance through
> individual choices for contributions ?
> But how to enable individual choices in a way as to avoid deadlocks in
> inter-dependent systems ?
> What if one ( or more ) "altruistic" agent faces a dilemma as to where to
> allocate resources in a situation where this situation can create different
> types of deadlocks ?
> Can an agent communicate about it to other agents, can they have a view of
> it,
> can they resolve deadlocks related to interdependency through creating novel
> solutions ?
I think you are talking about the 'divisibility' of Physical Sources and rights of secession.
My vision of how to handle this would be to always allow any sub-group to break from the larger group when they have sufficient ownership in any "realistically divisible portion".
For example,
Jul-07-2010: Posted to private list
mrc wrote:
> thomas ... wants the owner decide
> what he thinks is public or not..
> and i want the freedom on the product and
> in the author aswell having the last
> say in authorizing couse
Are you saying owners should have no say?
Who do you mean by 'author'?
> BUT estating an ideal universal way of sharing
> which he commits to reach at some point..
Sorry, but could you maybe rewrite this, I'm not understanding what you mean.
> there has to be something to lose for the people who say is public and
> then just share it with his close friends.
Hmm... I guess my view is more similar to how authors of Copyrightable materials choose a license.
Just because I apply the GNU GPL to a work doesn't mean I must announce or advertise that it exists. I can share it only with my friends if I so choose.
What I cannot do is stop them from using, modifiying, copying or sharing *their copy* with others.
>> My vision is that any group of owners applying this "Social Contract"
>> is fully independent of any other group except for how the Contract
>> may 'connect' them.
>>
>
> the using of the commons associated/restricted to a group of friends or
> whatever not universal doesnt interest me much
It may not be of interest to you, but it is still valuable to those small groups. Sharing is valuable even when it doesn't simultaneously involve all 7 billion humans.
Real limitations of space and time means I can only share a roto-tiller among a limited number of people.
>> This is how the GNU GPL works with software, and I think it can also
>> work with hardware. Just because a group (or single person) puts
>> software under the GNU GPL doesn't mean he is required to distribute
>> it to you or to anyone at all.
>>
>> This may seem unimportant, but is actually a very useful part of the
>> license because it allows developers to charge money for the software.
>> Richard Stallman was doing exactly this with the original GNU GPL
>> which he wrote for his work on the GNU Emacs text editor. He was
>> charging ... I think it was $300 per tape ... for copies he would
>> snail-mail to users of that editor.
>
> umm.. he is required to give you the sources at cost,
That is true *only* if he distributed the Object code.
The parallel in the real world is: I must allow at-cost access to the Sources (say an Avocado tree) *only* if I sold or gave away some Objects (Avocados).
The way I image this could play-out in practice is that the owners of Sources must treat Profit that Payer's investment in yet *more* Sources (*another* Avocado tree and Land and Water rights, etc.).
> you are required to let it be copied and
> redistributed after you bought or not..
I am not required to share *my copy* with anyone else. I can hide it under my bed if I like. I can even tell people I have a copy and let them see me using it without ever being required to share.
BUT, once I allow them to Use it (if using the GNU AGPL), or once I allow them to Copy it (if using the GNU GPL), then I must give them at-cost access to the Sources, and cannot stop them from Using/Modifying/Copying/Sharing their own instance.
> for what it matters this paralelism: owners could add the Required
> maintenance clausule, but not royalties(no lending$ or sell$) of a ppp
> thing.
I think it is important that we allow commercial use and allow the charging of Profit during sale or rental BUT under the strict rule that all Profit be treated as Payer Investment in yet more Sources that HE (the Payer) then becomes co-owner of that share.
>> But maybe I am wrong in my thinking.
>> Would you say we will need a central authority
>> of sorts that can be called upon to settle disputes?
>
> this can be choosen by the publisher,
Sorry, but could you tell me who is "the publisher" in the case of a physical thing like an Avocado tree?
Is it the worker who picks and stores the fruit?
Or is it the collective owners of that tree?
Or is it someone else?
Thanks,
Patrick
Jul-06-2010: Posted to Village-Telco-Dev@GoogleGroups.com
Carlos Martinez wrote:
> If open hardware is intended to have an impact in the developing
> world---in the sense of making it better--- do you think we can offer a
> better way to manufacture the products?
Surprisingly, there is better way being developed at the http://P2PFoundation.net wiki to create a legally-binding "operating system" needed to share the physical infrastructure so we can 'host' such production ourselves.
The basic idea currently has two parts:
1.) Organize groups of Consumers to "prepay" for some product(s), then use those prepayments as investments toward buying the land, building and tools needed to begin production so the Consumers are the collective owners of the factory paid in *Product* instead of *Profit*.
2.) Profit is collected from any latecomers wanting to buy 'extra' Products we may produce, but that overpayment is treated as that Payer's investment so they also become co-owners - either in the current factory (if any shares are available for sale) - or in another factory if the operation needs to grow to increase output.
Jul-06-2010: Reading VersionVega.com >>@versionvega and the Operation Crossing Light
Jul-06-2010: Watching Vimeo.com/13071959 >>The language of S...
> to aquire
> to manage
> to lock-in
> to bind
> to hunt
> Is the language of *Slavery*.
Jul-06-2010: Not yet posted
Consumers as Investors buy Sources and are paid with Product.
Workers as Investors operate Sources and are paid with Product.
Payers as Investors buy Sources when paying Profit.
Jul-06-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
ASCAP wrote:
> At this moment, we are facing our biggest challenge ever.
> Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge,
> Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies
> with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote "Copyleft"
> in order to undermine our "Copyright."
Copyleft is a *kind* of Copyright license.
Copyleft cannot undermine Copyright BY DEFINITION because it uses that very legal instrument to enforce it's own terms.
Copyleft cannot even *exist* without Copyright, for it is through Copyright that Copyleft has any stance at all.
Without Copyright, Copyleft would be a toothless plea for Freedom.
> these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music.
There are two problems with this claim.
1.) The phrase "our music" is in reference to authors who have chosen to use more traditional Copyright licenses for their works, and so are choosing to remain outside the of a Copyleft license.
The CC, PK, EFF (and I would add the FSF) would only interested in those authors and works for the purpose of educating and freeing them from the social problems caused by user subjugation.
2.) The phrase "do not want to pay" suggests these groups are against commerce in general, and yet (except for the occasional use of non-commercial clauses) they are not against the buy or selling of Free works. In fact, the the most used Copyleft license of all time: the GNU GPL was started by a man (some would say Saint) who used it to sell copies of GNU Emacs shipped on tape.
> Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.
No, their mission is to spread the word that *their* music (and any Copyrightable work placed under Copyleft) should be free as in Freedom.
----
Here's the link I used to read the mail, as the Clusty.com link
didn't work for me:
http://www.magnetmail.net/actions/email_web_version.cfm?recipient_id=34781220&message_id=1039704&user_id=ASCAP
Jul-05-2010: Posted to Oekonux
Stefan Merten wrote:
> The only antidote in capitalism is competition.
> Can you show me any capitalist (aka producing
> for abstract exchange) who would not be glad
> if all competitors would simply go away?
> Well, at least history is full of attempts to close
> markets and shut off competitors...
Yes, this is a terrible situation where famine is constructed because Profit requires a certain amount of Poverty.
Perfect competition is accomplished when every Consumer has sufficient ownership in the Means of Production - for that owner then receives the outputs "at cost".
This is one reason why we try to do everything in solitary confinement instead of using the system to accomplish our goals. I have to try to be my own mechanic, my own plumber, my own farmer etc. because it allows me to avoid the form of usury called Profit.
Another reason people avoid trading skills is because our tax systems punish us on both ends both as "income tax" and then as "sales tax". The state wants to minimize trade amongst ourselves because it is a puppet of the corporations, and the corporations want it minimized because it causes us to be further dependent upon them - which is the source of even more Profit.
> For a peer production based society there is no
> "artificial scarcity" because with no more profit
> to seek there is no more basis for this.
A peer-production based society can be implemented as a "User Owned" corporation under these two qualifications:
1.) The Initial investors must be Consumers of that product so their return is Product instead of Profit.
2.) The later Consumers must be treated as Investors when they pay Profit so they also gain the Property needed to eventually stop paying Profit.
Jul-05-2010: Posted to econowmix
Alex Rollin wrote:
> Discuss product
> Name product "Product K"
> DIscuss production system for "Product K"
> Name production system "Production System for Product K"
> Raise funds through pre-sale of "Product K"
> Use funds to purchase "Production System for Product K"
>
> What is this process called, Patrick?
I've been calling it a "Pre-Production Bond".
I also like to think of it as how "prepaid" goods or services (for example, prepaid cell-phone service) should really be implemented - where those who pay become literal co-owners in the Physical Sources (for a phone that would be the transmission towers, satellites, control rooms etc. that makup the infrastructure).
Our flagship products should be fundamental societal needs such as food and shelter.
I think many medium-income people would be willing to pre-pay for organic foods. We would use their funds to purchase the land, seeds, eggs, spores and tools needed to begin. The ROI for them would be the food itself at a very reduced price (price would be exactly cost).
My ultimate goal for shelter is to group-purchase a piece of land outside of any city limits so the occupying-investors can improve their portions without being punished - since we will then have control of how property tax should be levied, and so can more closely follow the advice of Henry George and others to tax overallocation instead.
I also have an idea about workers paying for their food and shelter by committing to accomplish future work such as farming or building construction or the many other skills we will need. This will allow us to begin a permaculture based society with a much smaller outlay of 'regular' money.
Since most agriculture investments do not give returns immediately, we can help the food situation at first by organizing the bulk-purchase of the necessary staples.
The most severe form could even begin by using tents for housing while the more permanent construction is begin carried out.
Jul-05-2010: Posted to econowmix
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> Alex Rollin wrote:
>>
>> One of my assumptions in all of this work I'm doing is that
>> common resources or common property is a necessary
>> assumption with p2p.
>>
>> I don't go into a lot of details yet about how I think it
>> should be aquired, or even what legal structrue should own
>> it or what to do with debt.
There may be a way of funding this without going into traditional debt by having groups of consumers pre-pay for the products they need while using that money to buy the Physical Sources required to begin. This is another way of looking at how some groups make bulk purchases, but has the potential for much more impact (though a longer window of return) when the target is a tree instead of a box of fruit.
Though this also nearly requires the production be already somewhat 'proven' for those investing consumers to feel comfortable handing us money - so to solve that problem we could find artisans that are already skilled and being productive, but are becoming financially stressed. We then organize the current consumers of that very same facility to simply pay-off the debt begin held.
For example, say a dairy owner is about to go bankrupt even though his customers enjoy that product. We would approach all of those customers with an offer: if they can prepay a sufficient amount, then the dairy becomes their collective property which allows them to then recieve the milk At Cost and under their full control.
> Or when a networked structure creates a "de-facto" commons,
> even temporary, through participation.
> De-facto "process" commons ?
Dante, are you talking about how Physical Sources are sometimes shared among participants without any formal agreements? This is a great thing, but I doubt it can 'scale' to a sufficient degree for us to replace Capitalism...
Jul-05-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't be interested in capital returns so much as success.
If some % of the profits are treated as payer investment, then what I describe below can be perpetuated.
> The initial owners should always be those who
> contribute the most (of all forms of capital).
For any of the investors who are also consumers, you will not be burdened by the requirement of making profit, for they can instead be paid in product (rye) itself.
One advantage of an enterprise being owned by the consumers is that there is no additional requirement to sell the product and so, once that pool of investors has been found, you will not need to advertise and will not be required to keep price above cost.
Jul-04-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> hoping to build something that is eternal.
Anything eternal must be able to grow in such a way that at least parts of it are outside the control of the initiator.
This is a scary thought to most, and is usually also seen as a disadvantage by those who choose to organize.
So here are my 2 questions that will probably sound to harsh to be considered sincere:
1.) Who will be the initial owners?
2.) How will Profit (which is the source of all growth) be treated?
Thanks for your consideration,
Patrick
Jul-04-2010:
Thinking about how the "community center" I envision will appear to be a mostly Public Space, but where individuals and/or subgroups can partition off their own areas - even temporarily - so they can do what they want without outside interference. This would include obvious things such as "rent the big rug washer" or "rent the party room" or "rent a lockable cubby in the walk-in freezer", etc.
Jul-02-2010: Not yet posted
Subject: Sharing Skills and Resources across Multiple Objectives
Jul-01-2010: Posted to
Markus Sabadello wrote:
> "Who does that server really serve" is a question I
> have asked myself many times as well.
The answer is always "whoever owns it".
That seems insurmountable until you realize that groups of users are also capable of wielding ownership for their own good.
So now we just need to design and write a legally binding Social Contract that user groups can choose to apply to such physical property and we can begin without the need to write any new software.
This is similar to the ideas of Bill St. Arnaud http://BillStArnaud.BlogSpot.com but extended right into the server room.
We, the users, must eventually own *all* the physical infrastructure of all our communication and productive systems such as the farms and factories and water and land if we are to be free.
But we have been fooled into believing that ownership must be limited to those who possess the skills needed to operate and maintain it = the Workers...
Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
Jul-01-2010: Posted to econowmix
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:55 PM, mrc <eskerda@hacklaviva.net> wrote:
>> Q: So if a car factory were under such a contract, anyone could just
>> wander in off the street and try to build their own automobile?
>> A: Shareholders will protect their investments from vandals and wear
>> as usual by requiring a rent be met, and may also require such things
>> as tests to qualify or insurance for coverage. The restrictions they
>> impose are arbitrary and there is no limit,
>
>
>
> when and where can i complain if i think they are too restrictive?
You could complain to that group, but they still may not let you participate.
My vision is that any group of owners applying this "Social Contract" is fully independent of any other group except for how the Contract may 'connect' them.
This is how the GNU GPL works with software, and I think it can also work with hardware. Just because a group (or single person) puts software under the GNU GPL doesn't mean he is required to distribute it to you or to anyone at all.
This may seem unimportant, but is actually a very useful part of the license because it allows developers to charge money for the software. Richard Stallman was doing exactly this with the original GNU GPL which he wrote for his work on the GNU Emacs text editor. He was charging ... I think it was $300 per tape ... for copies he would snail-mail to users of that editor.
But maybe I am wrong in my thinking. Would you say we will need a central authority of sorts that can be called upon to settle disputes? Requiring a central authority opens a huge potential for abuse and the sinking of funds and loss of control, so I am trying to avoid that.
>>
>> but the currency issued against those physical sources will decrease as
>> users assess them as less valuable if these claims are too high.
>
>
> i didnt get this last bit, i just rediscovered thiswiki page and i need
> more reading,
I'm saying each group of owners should be allowed to raise the bar so high that they are effectively no longer accepting bids from anyone outside of their group. Another way to say this is that any group of owners has the option to remove the property that they own from the 'public' sphere if they agree amongst themselves. They could also agree to remove the contract altogether. These are simply facts about how private property works: the owners always decide.
The bit about how the associated currency (the GNUrho) is effected is a bit too complicated to cover here. I need to cleanup my writing and solidify how that all works.
> i'm editing into http://publicprivateproperty.org/Invitation
> where
> id like you to comment if u have time and will.
>
I would like to work with you, but am a little lost as to what I should work on.
Could you help me understand where to edit or what you hope I will do?
Thanks,
Patrick