====THIS FILE IS ARCHIVAL. See 'Diary' for newest entries
Nov-30-2007: "Rejoice in the product we raise" an hymn to 0
> We'll need hives and bees for honey and mead.
> Buy land and capital to sow, harvest, thresh, store.
> Grow barley, corn, wheat for beer, bread and cereal.
> Vines, brambles and bushes make berries and hops.
> Use tools to press, boil and ferment - making jam, juice and wine.
> Cattle and so alfalfa for beef, butter, milk and cheese.
> Herbs and spices - pepper, onion, mint and all variety.
-- Lord AGNUcius
Nov-30-2007: Working on resume.
Nov-29-2007: FBI raids LibertyDollar.org, FOX news reports:
* YouTube.com/watch?v=qmNIdbl8cyk
* YouTube.com/watch?v=4_sSipUrBG0
* YouTube.com/watch?v=lg8P9dNXTEg
Nov-29-2007: Back from CA
Nov-08-2007: Listening to "Cool Dip" and "Summer Sun" at StreetFrog.ORG
Trying to catch up at Oekonux.org/list-en/archive
Snurb.info/produsage >>Produsage can be roughly defined as modes of production which are led by users or at least crucially involve users as producers - in other words, the user acts as a hybrid user/producer, or produser, virtually throughout the production process.
Snurb.info/index.php?q=node/286 >>'Anyone Can Edit': Understanding the Produser - Guest Lecture at SUNY, Buffalo / New School, NYC / Brown Univ. / Temple Univ.
Nov-05-2007: Reading Panarchy.com/Members/PaulBHartzog/Papers/Panarchy%20-%20Governance%20in%20the%20Network%20Age.pdf to better understand Panarchy.com and PaulBHartzog.org
Nov-05-2007: Considering New terms of engagement:
Some tima ago, Michel Bauwens created the page P2PFoundation.net/User_Ownership to house some of my work I had sent by mail. I would have preferred "User Owner", but found it mostly appropriate, so have repeated it a few times myself.
But "User Invest" describes the act instead of the outcome which is important because:
1. GNU users *buy* ownership when paying more than cost. It is never taken by force and is not a gift from the current owners.
2. GNU investment is continuous and dynamic across time and demand, while "owner" sounds more static and also has the traditional tone of artificial restriction associated with the capitalist.
3. The term "Invest" is compatible with information which should not have owners.
4. "User Invest" communicates the reason most Free Software developers code: they are the first user, and are investing for their own purposes. Their payment is the use-value of the product they create.
"Consumer Control" may be useful in the transition to describe what many 'open' fans want. Maybe "Citizen Control" is even better to collapse business with government.
Nov-04-2007: Mailed the creator of MikaTopia.BlogSpot.com and WikiTopia.WikiDot.com asking about continuing development.
Nov-04-2007: Posted to Blog.P2PFoundation.net/a-new-social-contract/2007/11/03
Paul asks "who are the participants" and Michel mentions the "crowd".
Is it possible to envision the actual CONSUMERS or USERS as the authors of the contract and also as the investors and therefore owners of the hardware and direct controllers of the community?
If you look at the most important social contract for "virtual" materials (software, genetics, mechanical design, audio, video, text, etc.) - the GNU GPL, you see it is built for the purpose of protecting USER Freedom.
Consumers are sometimes willing to invest. They are certainly willing to pay (in various forms, including putting up with advertising).
We could write a contract and then start a new business that agreed to use that contract as a kind of operational constitution. The contract would distribute control by insuring every user gains real, divisible ownership in the corporation when paying price above cost (what is usually profit) by treating that profit as that consumer's investment in corporate shares - so that governance never need be representative because the users would always be in collective control. The consumers would be investing for product, not profit.
This seems to solve many issues at once, since we wouldn't need to worry about many of the details we currently fret over if the farm/factory/servers were simply OWNED by the consumers that use them, because they would always act in their own self interests, but maybe I'm missing something...
Nov-04-2007: DaveShields.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/eben-moglen-copyleft-capitalism-gplv3-and-the-future-of-software-innovation >>Eben Moglen: Copyleft Capitalism, GPLv3 and the Future of Software Innovation
Nov-02-2007: Freedom-Force.org by G. Edward Griffin known for his books "The Creature from Jekyll Island" and "World without Cancer".
Older entries: diary-oct-2007