-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathdiary-dec-2009.htm
363 lines (360 loc) · 31.8 KB
/
diary-dec-2009.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>diary-dec-2009 </title>
<link href=".code/preferred.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"/>
</head>
<body>
<p class='header'>
<a href="_home.htm">Home</a> | <a href="_faq.htm">FAQ</a> | <a href="_thesis.htm">Thesis</a> | <a href="_diary.htm">Diary</a> | <a href="_projects.htm">Projects</a> | <a href="resume.htm">Resume</a> | <a href="_todo.htm">Todo</a> | <a href="_index.htm">Index</a> |<p>
<p class='main'><span class="rel">Related:</span> <a href="diary.htm">diary</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-21-2009:</span> Another <a href="title.htm">title</a> <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a: A Basic Outcome<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-20-2009:</span> Created <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.net/Barriers_to_entry">P2PFoundation.net/Barriers_to_entry</a> and <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.net/Zero-profit_condition">P2PFoundation.net/Zero-profit_condition</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-14-2009:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://GiftHub.org">GiftHub.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-12-2009:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org">ListCultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org</a><br/>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963@<a class="ext" href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Patrick Anderson <<a href="agnu.htm">agnu</a>cius@<a class="ext" href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963@<a class="ext" href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> > people cannot consume what we can <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> That is because <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is being <a href="use.htm">use</a>d for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> instead of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> We will <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership to gain the control we need.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> And we will <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> to help latecomers gain the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership they need.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="stat.htm">Stat</a>e your estimate of the probability that capitalism ends as now for every</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> 5 year period going forward. Combine that with the probability that this</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> end will be peaceful and easy. That is the likelihood, in a given period,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> you think your outcome will occur.</span><br/>
<br/>
Capitalism doesn't need to *end* for us to begin organizing in <a href="new.htm">new</a> ways.<br/>
<br/>
The change I <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose can be implemented as a corporation with a<br/>
special Terms of Operation to enforce the one constraint <small>[<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er investment]</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> When you say 'capital' I assume you mean Capitalism.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Capital is mostly <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y now. If by capitalism, you mean a cr<a href="edit.htm">edit</a> driven</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy of markets, then, yes, I mean capitalism. If you mean it as Marx</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> did, then no, I don't mean capitalism.</span><br/>
<br/>
We will always need markets because we will always want to <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="trad.htm">Trad</a>ing goods will be minimized within "<a href="user own.htm">User Own</a>ed" corporations<br/>
because when you <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> <a href="part.htm">part</a> of a dairy cow, you <a href="own.htm">own</a> the milk as a<br/>
'side-effect'. <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ing consumers do not need to buy the goods when<br/>
they <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es - they must only <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of that<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and then they <a href="own.htm">own</a> the goods by <a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ue of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the<br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es. They will then occasionally come to 'claim' <small>(<a href="pic.htm">pic</a>king up<br/>
their portion of raw milk according to the % of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the<br/>
<a href="diary.htm">diary</a>)</small> their <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
Marx was very wrong about at least one thing: the terrible error that<br/>
leads us to cling to the short-sighted notion that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the<br/>
Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion should be in the hands of those who happen to<br/>
possess the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s needed to 'operate' those <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
The consumers must learn to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion<br/>
before <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom can enter the physical <a href="real.htm">real</a>m.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Capitalism requires scarcity because <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is being misunderstood and</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> causes us to not <a href="real.htm">real</a>ize the fatal requirements of <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s who demand <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e never reach <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Capitalism doesn't require scarcity.</span><br/>
<br/>
What is the paper<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.net/Crisis_of_Value_and_the_Ethical_Economy">http://P2PFoundation.net/Crisis_of_Value_and_the_Ethical_Economy</a><br/>
about?<br/>
<br/>
If <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> doesn't require scarcity, then why do governments -<br/>
including the US - <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> farmers to *NOT* grow food on <a href="land.htm">land</a> that must be<br/>
proved to be arable?<br/>
<br/>
Why were dairy <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers pouring milk on the road during the Great Depression?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward for <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>er incents scarcity and</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> destruction.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is a form of reward for risk. Risk is taken because someone has</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> superior information, abilities to plan, or out of sheer gambling. Want it</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> incents is greater risk-taking so long as it doesn't fail.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, that is how most all corporations treat it now.<br/>
<br/>
But we are not *required* to do so.<br/>
<br/>
When we finally understand where <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> comes from, and when we can<br/>
design a <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el that includes some % of inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s who are<br/>
potential consumers that will accept "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t as their<br/>
return, then we can begin to handle that "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" as a<br/>
solution to that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's dependence upon the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
Until then we will continue to be confused about why abundance destroys <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<a href="social sufficiency coalition.htm">Social Sufficiency Coalition</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com">http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-11-2009:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org">ListCultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org</a><br/>
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963@<a class="ext" href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> people cannot consume what we can <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e</span><br/>
<br/>
That is because <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is being <a href="use.htm">use</a>d for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> instead of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
We will <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership to gain the control we need.<br/>
<br/>
And we will <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> to help latecomers gain the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership they need.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="fund.htm">Fund</a>ing can come from consumer groups pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t in that<br/>
the <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y or <a href="work.htm">work</a> is invested on their behalf in the material Means of<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion that they then have <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in.<br/>
<br/>
Those investing consumers will then <a href="own.htm">own</a> their <a href="own.htm">own</a> portion of Physical<br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es, and by consequence would also <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t of those means.<br/>
<br/>
Pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for things such as cell-phone service is already<br/>
commonplace, but the consumer never gains <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in<br/>
the portion of the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> he helped <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> as he paid "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above<br/>
<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>", but is instead kept always away from the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion<br/>
because of the prohibitive <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of singular <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership on the one<br/>
hand, and because of the complexity of <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership on the other -<br/>
especially when combined with our ignorance as to the origin and<br/>
'<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>' destination of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> It is, I believe, why we have invented the super-rich again. Their</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> capacity to consume and waste is simply necessary for capital to <a href="work.htm">work</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
When you say 'capital' I assume you mean Capitalism.<br/>
<br/>
Capitalism requires scarcity because <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is being misunderstood and<br/>
causes us to not <a href="real.htm">real</a>ize the fatal requirements of <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional<br/>
inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s who demand <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e never reach <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Of course we need 'capital' in that we need the material Means of<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion. But the form of our organization and the demands of our<br/>
inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s <small>(whether "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is sufficient)</small> will determine<br/>
whether we seek abundance.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward for <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>er incents scarcity and destruction.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's investment causes growth to be<br/>
automatically decentralized and even self-leveling. It is a governor<br/>
in the same way as a centrifugal steam valve <small>[<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor</a> ]</small>. It creates a<br/>
negative-feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop <small>[ <a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback</a><br/>
]</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-06-2009:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org">ListCultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org</a><br/>
<br/>
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Eugen Leitl <eugen@<a class="ext" href="http://leitl.org">leitl.org</a>> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 10:43:54AM -0500, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> This may reflect a deeper shift in our society. For most people, the Google</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> corporation is now effectively the de-facto government that structures</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> their <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>es online. So, how can we <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e Google a good government? :-)</small></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> You can't. Neither a corporate nor a government entity can be trusted.</span><br/>
<br/>
Hmm. That's true for nearly all <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent corporations and the<br/>
governments they control.<br/>
<br/>
But then who is this group called "we" that they are against? Is it<br/>
not the end <a href="user.htm">user</a>s?<br/>
<br/>
And why are they against us? It is because <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> requires scarcity,<br/>
and so seeking to perpetuate <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> incents <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial scarcity and<br/>
withholding solutions.<br/>
<br/>
We don't yet have "<a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom" in the physical <a href="real.htm">real</a>m because we<br/>
haven't yet discovered how to incorporate for our <a href="own.htm">own</a> purposes.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>..<br/>
<br/>
Here is my rough plan to solve this issue:<br/>
<br/>
1. We, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s, get together to <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> organizations and even<br/>
corporations that operate for our <a href="own.htm">own</a> benefit - where the 'return' for<br/>
those investments would be "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" goods and services which are<br/>
under *our* <small>(limited to the <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers of those physical re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es)</small><br/>
full control.<br/>
<br/>
This is good and sufficient for the '<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ic' case - where the number<br/>
of initial inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s is equal to the number of <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="user.htm">user</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
But if an organization is to grow, it must become 'dynamic' - and must<br/>
consider the case of the '<a href="new.htm">new</a>' <a href="user.htm">user</a> that has not yet paid for his<br/>
share of physical <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership required for the "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access the<br/>
others enjoy.<br/>
<br/>
This lack of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership causes the <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a> to be at a disadvantage.<br/>
He is at the mercy of the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers who will most likely charge<br/>
him a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(they will collect <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
The organization cannot grow unless more than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s are paid, since<br/>
"at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access only covers <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent operational expenses. So the<br/>
collection of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is somewhat beneficial, for there could be no<br/>
growth without it, but that value is usually 'mistreated' as a reward<br/>
for those <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers instead of being considered an investment<br/>
from the <a href="user.htm">user</a> who paid it. Even so-called "non-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>" corporations<br/>
keep this value while pretending it is not <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as they pad their<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a> wages, or they re-invest it into the organization but just like<br/>
the for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s, those <a href="new.htm">new</a> investments become the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of the<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span><a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent* <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers instead of becoming the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of the person<br/>
who paid it.<br/>
<br/>
2. The 'fix' for the dynamic case is to write a sort of Contract or<br/>
Terms of Operation very similar in purpose to the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> but enforced<br/>
by <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty rights instead of copyright. The primary <small>(and as far as I<br/>
can tell maybe even the only)</small> constraint of this contract is that all<br/>
<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(all <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> be invested in more physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es<br/>
needed for the growth of that entity, but those <a href="new.htm">new</a> investments are<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the <a href="user.htm">user</a> who paid that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<a href="social sufficiency coalition.htm">Social Sufficiency Coalition</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://patware.FreeShell.org">http://patware.FreeShell.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-04-2009:</span> Unsent<br/>
Eugen Leitl wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Running your <a href="own.htm">own</a> caching DNS resolver is a)</small> trivial</span><br/>
<br/>
That is true for those of you that <a href="know.htm">know</a> how or are comfortable enough with <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ting to be able to learn and implement that solution.<br/>
<br/>
But what about 99.99% of the other people on earth?<br/>
<br/>
Will the P2P <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy not promote specialization?<br/>
<br/>
I must be able to compensate individuals who are <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed where I am not or what is the point of connecting at all?<br/>
<br/>
I cannot write or perform music, yet I could enjoy it if I could help the <a href="art.htm">art</a>isan meet his basic needs.<br/>
<br/>
I could sow while someone else cooked and others were washing dishes and <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing beds etc.<br/>
<br/>
I cannot be my <a href="own.htm">own</a> chiropractor.<br/>
I cannot perform heart surgery on myself <small>(or on anyone)</small>.<br/>
I cannot repair my car's automatic transmission.<br/>
<br/>
Sure I would like to learn those things. But maybe I just can't. Or maybe I don't have time because I am trying to add to society in ways I excell where other struggle.<br/>
<br/>
We will need shared <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of physical components needed for things such as DNS, search engines, video hosting, software hosting, etc.<br/>
<br/>
DIY is seen as 'rugged', "self determined" and even <a href="free.htm">free</a>ing - for you then must rely on nobody.<br/>
<br/>
But if humans are solitary creatures, then why do we tend to cluster? Why are we not spread evenly across the surface of the planet?<br/>
<br/>
Nobody can be an expert in *every* field unless we abandon our higher achievements to return to a subsitence-level existence where all of our waking hours would be spent dealing with the daily trouble of keeping bread in our guts and shelter over our heads.<br/>
<br/>
Is specialization <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly that bad? Will we all become <small>(or stay)</small> in<a href="sect.htm">sect</a>s if we are able to <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e <a href="work.htm">work</a>?<br/>
<br/>
I often hear the cry for DIY, but if we each must do everything without help from others, then shouldn't "P2P" be just "P"?<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy is not about Self-Sufficiency.<br/>
The <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy is about Social-Sufficiency.<br/>
<br/>
It's the <a href="econ.htm">Econ</a>oWe<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-04-2009:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Lists.OKFN.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss">Lists.OKFN.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss</a><br/>
I wonder why so many licenses disallow commerce.<br/>
<br/>
Maybe <a href="part.htm">part</a> of it is the continued confusion between the FSF's concepts of 'commercial' and '<a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary'.<br/>
<br/>
Another <a href="part.htm">part</a> might be the Copyright holder's <small>(I'm also <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ining individual <a href="art.htm">art</a>isans who chose CC-NC)</small> somewhat justified but otherwise ham-handed attempt to <a href="recover.htm">recover</a> some of their operating <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
Could we <small>(the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s)</small> ever learn how to organize and 'host' the basic physical needs of people that try to do this good <a href="work.htm">work</a>?<br/>
<br/>
Developers of "Open <a href="know.htm">Know</a>ledge" have basic necessities such as food, shelter, simple clothing, etc. that they are unable to meet when they receive no compensation for their valuable results.<br/>
<br/>
This causes many of them to lead a double life - where they must care of their bodily needs through <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary means <small>(or in this example - where they must disallow commerce)</small> even while trying to lead a life of "moral purity" <small>[as Saint IGNUcius would say]</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-01-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://MeatShare.org">MeatShare.org</a> <span class="quot2">>>The Bay Area Meat CSA is a <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> of Bay Area residents who cooperate to buy meat directly from local ranchers. It's the most <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>-effective way to buy good, healthy, local meat and it's an opportunity to connect with the ranchers and processors whose <a href="work.htm">work</a> feeds us.</span><br/>
<br/>
Of course they want you to buy meat instead of buying cattle. Meat is an output of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, whereas cattle are the <small>(primary)</small> physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> goes missing when the consumers <a href="own.htm">own</a> the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es. But <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers don't want to be paid wage alone, they want to be <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers so consumers <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s AND also <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Sharing meat is far weaker than sharing cattle! We must buy and <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, not just the outputs of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion or there is no <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence from raw Capitalism at all. Boring.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-01-2009:</span> Updated <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.net/Profit">P2PFoundation.net/Profit</a> with:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="user own.htm">User Own</a>ed theory describes <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e Above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> = <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e - <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a><br/>
<br/>
But <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is confusingly often equated with the word Value as though it should be a goal of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between Consumer <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e and <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s - where Wages are one of those <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s. It describes a consumer's dependence on those <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is not needed by society. It only appears to be needed for development because we ignorantly leave <a href="fund.htm">Fund</a>ing to a group of inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s that expect to be paid from that pool.<br/>
<br/>
But if consumers would group together to buy the material Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion with <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t being their reward instead <small>(you could think of it as a pre <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment plan where they become full legal <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers)</small>, then we would finally be in full control and would also receive those goods and services at a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e equal to <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> since <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is undefined when the end <a href="user.htm">user</a>s have sufficient* <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is an inverse measure of consumer development and can be balanced <small>(to solidify an <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy)</small> by treating it as an investment from the consumer who paid it toward more Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es needed for future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion as outlined in the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="general public law.htm">General Public Law</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<small>(*)</small> "Sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership" means the consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>s enough of <small>(for example)</small> Cow-Shares that purchasing milk is not needed - for they would <a href="own.htm">own</a> the milk as a 'side effect' of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the cattle. In that case the consumer must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the daily operations of the dairy, but does not buy milk from anyone since it is already their <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
All consumers lacking "Sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership" would need to buy milk, and at that point they would be subject to the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers possibly charging a <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e Above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
A <a href="user own.htm">User Own</a>ed dairy would allow <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers to sell any extra milk they may have to <a href="new.htm">new</a> consumers with the Terms of Operation enforced stipulation that all <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e Above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> be treated as that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's investment in more cattle and supporting <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es <small>(barns, water rights, tools, feed, etc.)</small>. The investment would become <small>(after a vesting period)</small> the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of that <a href="new.htm">new</a> consumer so that, incrementally and in a self-correcting manner, the organization would continue to be <a href="user own.htm">User Own</a>ed even as it grows to cover the earth with the abundance that those adhe<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>s would have no reason to fight against.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-01-2009:</span> Created page <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.net/Cow-Share">P2PFoundation.net/Cow-Share</a><br/>
A Cow-Share program is an example of Demand Side investment into the material Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion for the purpose of receiving at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a> dairy <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts under full consumer control.<br/>
<br/>
This <a href="user own.htm">User Own</a>ed form of organization was made illegal in Utah, U.S. with the <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>age of HB311 by Margaret Dayton Utah <a href="stat.htm">Stat</a>e Senator, District 15.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Text of the bill can be read at: <a class="ext" href="http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2007/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0311.htm">http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2007/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0311.htm</a><br/>
<br/>
It is easy to see why the Corporate-run governments <a href="pass.htm">pass</a> such laws: The largest problem Cow-Sharing causes for 'regular' <small>(for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> organizations is the ability for the end-<a href="user.htm">user</a> to receive the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t without ever <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. Since the consumers <a href="own.htm">own</a> the cattle, barn, tools, etc. - they would <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> only the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <small>(including wages)</small>, but <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is undefined. This <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el undercuts all other <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership arrangements because the goal is finally for <a href="use.htm">Use</a> value alone. For-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> corporations probably claim some sort of "unfair competition" since their only purpose for existence is to keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e Above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
See <a class="ext" href="http://SenateSite.com/blog/2007/02/raw-milk-regulations.html">http://SenateSite.com/blog/2007/02/raw-milk-regulations.html</a> for <small>(lack of)</small> justifications.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-01-2009:</span> Where is "<a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom" when <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers <a href="own.htm">Own</a>?<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-01-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://GEO.coop">GEO.coop</a> <span class="quot">"'Grassroots <a href="econ.htm">Econ</a>omic Organizing'"</span> probably has good intentions, but cannot stop beating the "<a href="work.htm">Work</a>er <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed" horse. Their "Consumer Cooperatives" <a href="sect.htm">sect</a>ion is confined to <span class="quot">"'Member-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed and democratically-controlled associations though which consumers collectively purchase and distribute goods/services.'"</span>. Why can we not consider the more powerful case where the consumers <a href="own.htm">own</a> the material Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion? Why are consumers always taken out of the possible role of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Dec-01-2009:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://I-R-I-E.net/inhalt/011/011-full.pdf">I-R-I-E.net/inhalt/011/011-full.pdf</a> contains this gem <span class="quot2">>>It is the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>-motive, it seems, that keeps us away from abundance, not infinite human wants</span><br/>
<br/>
Robert Verzola's entry mentions "demand side" <small>(as compared to "supply side")</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Thinking about these terms just the other day I noticed the negative connotations of 'demand' while 'supply' seems incontrovertibly positive ... even *saving*. Promoting a <a href="payer own.htm">Payer Own</a>ed society will require better terminology.</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-dec-2009">diary-dec-2009</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>