-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathdiary-mar-2011.htm
1102 lines (1099 loc) · 63.8 KB
/
diary-mar-2011.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
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<?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-mar-2011 </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">Mar-28-2011:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://ConsciousCapitalism.org">ConsciousCapitalism.org</a>, <a class="ext" href="http://BillStArnaud.BlogSpot.com">BillStArnaud.BlogSpot.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-28-2011:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://GlobalGuerrillas.TypePad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/11/completely-new-economies-as-a-software-service.html">GlobalGuerrillas.TypePad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/11/completely-new-economies-as-a-software-service.html</a>, <a class="ext" href="http://GlobalGuerrillas.TypePad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/11/eaas-economy-as-a-service.html">GlobalGuerrillas.TypePad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/11/eaas-economy-as-a-service.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-25-2011:</span> Alternative <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency attacked by the government<br/>
Suresh Fernando wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> So you seem to <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> that someone should <a href="own.htm">own</a> 'our nation'</span><br/>
<br/>
Hmm... Well, I see what you mean, we don't<br/>
want pwnership - that's what we are trying<br/>
to solve.<br/>
<br/>
But we need each a certain a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of control<br/>
over a limited subset of the whole, else we<br/>
won't even be allowed basic personal privacy.<br/>
<br/>
We must <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d a system that can both resist<br/>
overaccumulation that <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ern feudalists seek,<br/>
while retaining the ability to organize for<br/>
more efficient <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion when sharing <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership has some valuable attributes<br/>
that, if handled carefully, can be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to our<br/>
advantage as a species instead of being <a href="use.htm">use</a>d<br/>
as a tool of domination as it often has been<br/>
by those who have organized before us.<br/>
<br/>
Similar to how the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> <a href="use.htm">use</a>s Copyright to<br/>
create Copy<a href="left.htm">left</a> for the purpose of <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ing<br/>
a non-governmental commons,<br/>
<br/>
We can write a Terms-of-Operation that we can<br/>
then apply to <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty Rights ... a sort of<br/>
<a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty <a href="left.htm">Left</a> if you will, that will allow us<br/>
to <a href="use.htm">use</a> regular <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership as the basis of a <a href="new.htm">new</a><br/>
approach to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ing physical assets that we<br/>
might more efficiently hold in common.<br/>
<br/>
I think of it as a "simulated commons" that is<br/>
constructed somewhat <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificially - in that we<br/>
do not wait for a government or corporation to<br/>
finally do the "right thing", but instead <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e<br/>
that action ourselves, in a collective manner.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="part.htm">Part</a> of the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>iculty comes in discovering<br/>
what 'rules' or 'laws' must be included in the<br/>
Terms-of-Operation.<br/>
<br/>
I believe I have found 2 of those rules:<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> Consumers are the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s who are the<br/>
*<a href="real.htm">real</a>* <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers of those Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion<br/>
and the 'return' is the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t itself which<br/>
they *already <a href="own.htm">own</a>* as a side-effect of their<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts. This<br/>
creates a truly <a href="use.htm">use</a>-value endeavor.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is treated as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er Investment.<br/>
This means late-comers <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>,<br/>
but that overpayment is invested *for them*<br/>
in even more Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion - so that<br/>
each <a href="user.htm">User</a>s incrementally gains the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty<br/>
they need to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> them from <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a><br/>
in the future. It is a negative-feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-25-2011:</span> The growth of municipal broadband <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>s<br/>
<br/>
Suresh wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Crowd<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, and Crowd-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed so <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e and <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> are <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ntical.<br/>
<br/>
This is better than City-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed for at least two reasons:<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> By avoiding the appearance of a government entity, corporations will not be able to claim you are skewing competition or generally attempting to be 'socialist' <small>(with negative connotations)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Government initiatives are not truly <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s, and so the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s lose fine-grained control over what is allowed, and also <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es far above true <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s - with that extra revenue <a href="use.htm">use</a>d by well-intentioned 'officials' to <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> other pet projects.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-25-2011:</span> Reading <a href="part.htm">part</a>s of <a class="ext" href="http://Usenix.org/events/fast11/tech/full_papers">Usenix.org/events/fast11/tech/full_papers</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-24-2011:</span> Alternative <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency attacked by the government<br/>
<span class="quot">> The Fed creates <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y and then gives it</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>s, corporations and governments</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
This is not quite what I understand.<br/>
<br/>
The system is so complicated that<br/>
I am not sure whether the following<br/>
is perfectly correct...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I believe the structure is more like:<br/>
<br/>
The Fed is a sort of 'front' for <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ers<br/>
from all around the world <small>(sometimes<br/>
called "International <a href="bank.htm">Bank</a>ers")</small>.<br/>
<br/>
These International <a href="bank.htm">Bank</a>ers issue the<br/>
<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency <a href="use.htm">use</a>d by almost every nation.<br/>
<br/>
In the United <a href="stat.htm">Stat</a>es, these are "Federal<br/>
Reserve <a href="note.htm">Note</a>s".<br/>
<br/>
These <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ers then *BUY* whatever they<br/>
want with this phoney <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y.<br/>
<br/>
One of the most terrifying commodities<br/>
they buy is BONDS.<br/>
<br/>
The reason this is such a problem is<br/>
that many of those BONDS are <a href="back.htm">back</a>ed<br/>
by <a href="land.htm">land</a> such as National Forests and<br/>
other Federal <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ties.<br/>
<br/>
Because of this, we are losing <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
of our nations to shysters who *BUY* it<br/>
from us using <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y they created without<br/>
taking any risk whatever.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-19-2011:</span> Open <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e Microfactory<br/>
Marcin at <a class="ext" href="http://OpenFarmTech.org/weblog/2011/03/open-source-micro-factory">http://OpenFarmTech.org/weblog/2011/03/open-source-micro-factory</a><br/>
wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine if you could <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d cars, industrial robots,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> engines, and other things in your <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="back.htm">back</a> yard.</span><br/>
<br/>
If everyone can access the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion,<br/>
how will we keep wages above a bare minimum?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-19-2011:</span> As Barriers to Entry are Lowered, Wages will be Destroyed<br/>
As the overhead to <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipate is reduced,<br/>
the number of potential <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers is increased.<br/>
<br/>
As capital-outlay approaches zero, all peers<br/>
will have the chance to reverse-bid for any<br/>
<a href="job.htm">job</a> for which they have <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
This will cause wages to fall to the minimum<br/>
since there will then be nothing to stop<br/>
consumers from hiring the lowest bidder.<br/>
<br/>
Is this an expected result?<br/>
<br/>
What can we do to solve this dilemma?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-18-2011:</span> <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership, Scale of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion and <a href="use.htm">Use</a> Value<br/>
Joe Rinehart wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> you are mistaking the "<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t of labor"</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> for the "means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion."</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, I see what you mean. I've made some<br/>
mistakes here, and I'll be more careful.<br/>
<br/>
But there are examples that show the point,<br/>
and I think the Olive tree still holds.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er who <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>ks the olives should</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> certainly <a href="own.htm">own</a> some/many of the olives.</span><br/>
<br/>
We could <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> them with <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the "<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t<br/>
of Labor" if that is what they want.<br/>
<br/>
But that is a separate question from whether<br/>
they need <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
I am asking if the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er should gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
in a tree when he <a href="work.htm">work</a>s on it, even when that<br/>
tree is <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed by a few neighbors that will<br/>
be using the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t without selling any of it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> theories would say that an individual should</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> not <a href="own.htm">own</a> 100 olive trees.</span><br/>
<br/>
Just to be clear: I am not suggesting a single<br/>
individual should <a href="own.htm">own</a> 100 olive trees. I am<br/>
talking about <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership of 100 olive trees,<br/>
with the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers determined by how<br/>
much <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t they predict they will actually<br/>
<a href="use.htm">use</a> for themselves. 100 trees might be <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed<br/>
by 150 people, for example, if those people<br/>
don't eat much of that kind of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, or 100<br/>
trees might be <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by only 75 people when<br/>
those <a href="user.htm">user</a>s intend to <a href="use.htm">use</a> alot of that kind<br/>
of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a is to help <a href="user.htm">user</a>s to gain exactly as<br/>
much of the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion required to<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t they intend to<br/>
consume within the next round-of-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
Actually, I think it would be even better to<br/>
help them <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> just slightly more than they<br/>
predict they will need, so variance in output<br/>
will not leave them in the position where they<br/>
will need to buy the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t from somewhere<br/>
else - thereby suffering the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
In cases where the output is more than that<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>er can <a href="use.htm">use</a> directly, they should be able to<br/>
do whatever they want with that extra <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t,<br/>
even including *selling* it to <a href="user.htm">user</a>s who do<br/>
not yet have enough <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> It is a fallacy to suggest that something</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> that <a href="work.htm">work</a>s on a small scale <small>(private</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of capital for personal <a href="use.htm">use</a>)</small> will</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="work.htm">work</a> on a large scale.</span><br/>
<br/>
Maybe it is a fallacy to suggest the opposite.<br/>
<br/>
Some things can scale, while others can't.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="mak.htm">Mak</a>ing the solution scalable is <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amental<br/>
to it being a <a href="real.htm">real</a> alternative.<br/>
<br/>
Capitalism scales to some degree, but then<br/>
begins to deteriorate quickly because of the<br/>
concentration of wealth caused by treating<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward for the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as an investment from the<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er will allows the organization to grow<br/>
while auto-distributing <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership to the<br/>
agents who paid for it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-15-2011:</span> <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership, Scale of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion and <a href="use.htm">Use</a> Value<br/>
Kevin Carson wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> All the situations you describe involve self-<a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ed <a href="art.htm">art</a>isans</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of one kind or another doing one-off <a href="job.htm">job</a>s for customers, and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> using their <a href="own.htm">own</a> tools to perform the service.</span><br/>
<br/>
Hmm... I see. But I think this oversight on my <a href="part.htm">part</a><br/>
does not invalidate the question in general.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
For example, what if I <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed the tools to perform the<br/>
service, but hired someone to do the <a href="work.htm">work</a>?<br/>
<br/>
Let's say I <a href="own.htm">own</a> the cable-splicer and whatever else<br/>
equipment a <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> technician would need, and he<br/>
<a href="use.htm">use</a>d that equipment to <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> my house.<br/>
<br/>
Should he then become <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of those tools?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
What if I <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed all the wrenches and other things<br/>
needed to fix my car, or <a href="install.htm">install</a> plumbing but hired<br/>
someone else to do the <a href="work.htm">work</a>?<br/>
<br/>
Should he then become <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of those tools?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
If he <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed his <a href="own.htm">own</a> tools <small>(the same as the ones I<br/>
was offering)</small>, notice he would not be able to stop<br/>
other potential <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers for reverse-bidding for that<br/>
<a href="job.htm">job</a> - even when those other <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers did not <a href="own.htm">own</a><br/>
tools themselves, because I would allow those non-<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>er to access my tools "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>". His<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership would not help him except in cases where<br/>
he was vying for a <a href="job.htm">job</a> from a customer that did NOT<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a> those tools.<br/>
<br/>
I would be '<a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ed' through my <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the<br/>
Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion from being forced to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more<br/>
than lowest wage any <a href="work.htm">work</a>er would offer.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
This seems to indicate that competition between<br/>
<a href="work.htm">work</a>ers is maximized when consumers <a href="own.htm">own</a> the Means<br/>
of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
This minimizes Wages and causes <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> to be undefined.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-15-2011:</span> <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership, Scale of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion and <a href="use.htm">Use</a> Value<br/>
<br/>
<a href="work.htm">Work</a>er <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership is a very widely accepted as<br/>
being the obvious answer to wage slavery.<br/>
<br/>
It is said that <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers must have at least *some*<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion lest they<br/>
otherwise be exploited by those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
But when the situation is on a very small scale,<br/>
the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a seems to break-down and become almost<br/>
absurd - for would you have a <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> technician<br/>
become <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of your home <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> because<br/>
you hire him to <a href="install.htm">install</a> some wires and configure<br/>
your router?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Let's try "stepping through" the logic of this - the way<br/>
a programmer might "step through" a program as he<br/>
is trying to debug what, *exactly* is wrong, and so<br/>
what *exactly* must change.<br/>
<br/>
We will do this by reducing the scale to just one<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>er, and then slowly increasing the scale...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a single Olive tree.<br/>
<br/>
You <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>k the fruit yourself and turn some of them<br/>
into oil - all for your <a href="own.htm">own</a>, personal <a href="use.htm">use</a>.<br/>
<br/>
You <a href="use.htm">use</a> all of the outputs of that tree and you do<br/>
all of the <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
One day you slip and hurt your <a href="back.htm">back</a>. You can no<br/>
longer <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>k the Olives, but the <a href="work.htm">work</a> must be done.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
If you hire someone to <a href="work.htm">work</a> for you, should that<br/>
<a href="work.htm">work</a>er have some <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in your personal tree?<br/>
<br/>
If yes, then should the mechanic that fixes your<br/>
car become also <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>er of that vehicle?<br/>
<br/>
What about a plumber that fixes your pipes?<br/>
Should he become <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of your home?<br/>
<br/>
What if you hire someone to fix your laptop?<br/>
Should he become a stakeholder of that device?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Why do these questions seem illogical?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
What if the Olive tree is <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed by you and your<br/>
neighbor? What if an orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> is <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed by 10<br/>
people? What if by 100? And 1,000? 1,000,000?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
The same of the other questions.<br/>
<br/>
What if the car is <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed by 2 people? 3 people?<br/>
4, 5, 6, 7, etc...<br/>
<br/>
What if the house has more than one <a href="own.htm">own</a>er? What<br/>
if it is an a<a href="part.htm">part</a>ment complex?<br/>
<br/>
What if the laptop is a massive datacenter?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
When does the answer to the question of "Should<br/>
the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion"<br/>
switch from "Obviously NO" to "Obviously YES"?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
But maybe this is simply the wrong question.<br/>
<br/>
What am I missing here? Why should the end-<a href="user.htm">user</a><br/>
retain full <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in some cases, and under<br/>
what circumstances should the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers become<br/>
shareholders?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I suspect it has something to do with whether the<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are using the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t directly as compared<br/>
to them selling it to other agents.<br/>
<br/>
When the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is <a href="use.htm">use</a>d directly, it seems we do<br/>
not have a problem with the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s retaining <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
of their trees, cars, houses, etc.<br/>
<br/>
But if those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers intend to *sell* some of the<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, then I think we feel the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers then<br/>
deserve <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> that will likely be<br/>
collected from those buyers.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
So when <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion is <a href="imput.htm">Imput</a>ed - where the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers<br/>
of the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion <a href="use.htm">use</a> all of the outputs<br/>
of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and nothing is sold - it seems<br/>
under that condition, that <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers do not need<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership ... since I guess it would do them no<br/>
good anyway.<br/>
<br/>
When the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers do not sell the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, there is no<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> to divide-up.<br/>
<br/>
Also, when all <a href="user.htm">user</a>-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in<br/>
the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, the usual tactic of stopping<br/>
other <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers from accessing those Means <small>(to increase<br/>
wages)</small> cannot be achieved by <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers gaining <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
for themselves, for when the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s have sufficient<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, they can allow any <a href="work.htm">work</a>er to reverse-bid<br/>
for that <a href="job.htm">job</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-15-2011:</span> <a href="co-own.htm">Co-Own</a>ing the Physical Layer<br/>
Isaac Wilder wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Now we are speaking not of a means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, but of a means of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> re<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. The <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics of the electron are radically <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> from those of the atom.</span><br/>
<br/>
What would you say is more expensive for the planet:<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> Copying and <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ing a strawberry by allowing another plant to grow<br/>
and then drying that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t in the sun and <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ing the results in a<br/>
cellar.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Copying a byte of data using equipment that was created in<br/>
factories that poisons the atmosphere - and all the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es,<br/>
recursively, required to mine those things from the Earth and<br/>
transport them into place and all of that activity as it is being<br/>
constructed, transported, <a href="install.htm">install</a>ed and continually operated,<br/>
including all of the coal, petroleum and nuclear reactors needed to<br/>
power that activity continually, and also the dangerous and sometimes<br/>
lethal results of dealing with the discarded <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware which fills our<br/>
water supplies and air with dangerous concentrations of a wide variety<br/>
of chemicals.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Humanity constitutes the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion when it comes to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> intellectual capital,</span><br/>
<br/>
We are a small <a href="part.htm">part</a> of that equation.<br/>
<br/>
What about the <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ters and wires and electricity and <a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e needed to<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>host* that intellectual capital?<br/>
<br/>
Why pretend the physical layer does not exist? What good will that do?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> and there's no reason why it shouldn't set about</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the distribution of its <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t. Look at Wikipedia - a re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> that belongs to the whole of humanity.</span><br/>
<br/>
The physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es required to *host* Wikipedia do not belong to the<br/>
whole of humanity.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Now we are talking about</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> something besides olive trees or houses or whatever other physical</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> thing - we are talking about patterns, numbers, encodings, bits.</span><br/>
<br/>
Olive trees are also patterns <small>(genetics)</small> applied to minerals.<br/>
<br/>
The same can be said of houses. The are composed of plans applied to<br/>
the physical materials needed to *host* that pattern.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> We are talking about <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding a system that transmutes and replicates</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> this commodity at no marginal <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
BALONEY!<br/>
<br/>
There are massive environmental and even just simple <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>tary <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
If the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s are so marginal, then why don't we just replace ComCast,<br/>
Facebook, Google, Amazon <a href="web.htm">Web</a> Services, etc. immediately? We can laugh<br/>
at their massive warehouses of servers and expensive fiber and cable<br/>
as we host and transmit all of that data at no marginal <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>...<br/>
<br/>
In 2010 Wikipedia asked for $16 Million USD to cover operating<br/>
expenses <small>( <a class="ext" href="http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/11/14/2010-contribution">http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/11/14/2010-contribution</a><br/>
)</small><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> It is only natural that humanity should <a href="own.htm">own</a> such a system,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> as it is the entity which generates <a href="know.htm">know</a>ledge.</span><br/>
<br/>
Unfortunately we do not <a href="own.htm">own</a> the Physical Layer, and so are at the<br/>
whims of those who do.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> So then, it should be <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by whoever is willing to have a hand in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> its construction and maintenance, and the essential thing here is</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> getting each individual to assent to the construction of such a system.</span><br/>
<br/>
So the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers should be the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers?<br/>
<br/>
What about just a single cable between two neighbors?<br/>
If I hire someone to <a href="install.htm">install</a> that medium, are you saying<br/>
that <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er should <a href="own.htm">own</a> that wire?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-15-2011:</span> <a href="co-own.htm">Co-Own</a>ing the Physical Layer<br/>
<span class="quot">> the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers of value, the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, should be</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the primary '<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers', 'possesors' or beneficiaries</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of that value</span><br/>
<br/>
This approach is a very heartfelt and widely accepted<br/>
as being the obvious answer to wage slavery.<br/>
<br/>
But let's "step through" the logic of this by<br/>
reducing the scale to just one <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, and then slowly<br/>
increasing the size of the operation...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a single Olive tree.<br/>
<br/>
You <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>k the fruit yourself and turn some of them<br/>
into oil - all for your <a href="own.htm">own</a>, personal <a href="use.htm">use</a>.<br/>
<br/>
You <a href="use.htm">use</a> all of the outputs of that tree and you do<br/>
all of the <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
One day you slip and hurt your <a href="back.htm">back</a>. You can no<br/>
longer <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>k the Olives, but the <a href="work.htm">work</a> must be done.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
If you hire someone to <a href="work.htm">work</a> for you, should that<br/>
<a href="work.htm">work</a>er have some <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in your personal tree?<br/>
<br/>
If yes, then should the mechanic that fixes your<br/>
car become also <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>er of that vehicle?<br/>
<br/>
What about a plumber that fixes your pipes?<br/>
Should he become <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of your home?<br/>
<br/>
What if you hire someone to fix your laptop?<br/>
Should he become a stakeholder of that device?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Why do these questions seem illogical?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
What if the Olive tree is <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed by you and your<br/>
neighbor? What if an orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> is <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed by 10<br/>
people? What if by 100? And 1,000? 1,000,000?<br/>
<br/>
The same of the other questions.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
What if the car is <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed by 2 people? 3 people?<br/>
4, 5, 6, 7, etc...<br/>
<br/>
What if the house has more than one <a href="own.htm">own</a>er? What<br/>
if it is an a<a href="part.htm">part</a>ment complex?<br/>
<br/>
What if the laptop is a massive datacenter?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
When does the question of "Should the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er have<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion" switch from<br/>
"Obviously NO" to "Obviously YES"?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-14-2011:</span> <a href="co-own.htm">Co-Own</a>ing the Physical Layer<br/>
Hi Michel,<br/>
<br/>
I write to you in private because I want to avoid<br/>
"calling you out" on the list, but value your input<br/>
on this important topic.<br/>
<br/>
Sepp seems to be saying the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers will be fine<br/>
without the need for <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership beyond that of <a href="use.htm">use</a>.<br/>
<br/>
I wonder if you could respond to this?<br/>
<br/>
I <a href="know.htm">know</a> you are not alone; millions of people feel<br/>
<a href="work.htm">work</a>er <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is vital to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ing those agents<br/>
from exploitation.<br/>
<br/>
But I think there is a chance the reasoning may not<br/>
be very well thought-out.<br/>
<br/>
It is <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult to get people to talk about things<br/>
when they think the answers are so 'obvious' that<br/>
they need no consideration.<br/>
<br/>
Please try to tell us exactly why the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers would<br/>
want <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the context of the scenario of a<br/>
<a href="user.htm">user</a>-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Whenever I become confused about how to reason<br/>
through some <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the question, I find it <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful<br/>
to bring the scale of the organization down to<br/>
smaller and smaller sizes - with the number of<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers at '1' being the '<a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ntity' value.<br/>
<br/>
In other words, if you hired someone to fix the<br/>
<a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> in your home, would you say that <a href="work.htm">work</a>er<br/>
should receive <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in your <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Thanks for your time,<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-14-2011:</span> <a href="co-own.htm">Co-Own</a>ing the Physical Layer<br/>
Sepp Hasslberger wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I do not think that outsiders <small>(like a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> technician who is not a <a href="user.htm">user</a> of the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> he maintains)</small> should</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> be required to be <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers. A clean</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> professional relationship would be just</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> fine.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-14-2011:</span> <a href="co-own.htm">Co-Own</a>ing the Physical Layer<br/>
Sepp Hasslberger wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> The end result will be a <a href="user.htm">user</a>-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="user.htm">user</a>-maintained <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a></span><br/>
<br/>
I'm curious about this <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ement.<br/>
<br/>
Are you saying the only agents allowed to<br/>
<a href="work.htm">work</a> on a <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> must be within that<br/>
specific subnet?<br/>
<br/>
If not, and if groups are allowed to hire<br/>
anyone to <a href="work.htm">work</a> on the equipment, then should<br/>
we require those <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers buy <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in<br/>
that subnet before beginning <a href="work.htm">work</a> to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a><br/>
them from exploitation?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-12-2011:</span> <a href="co-own.htm">Co-Own</a>ing the Physical Layer<br/>
Suresh Fernando wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> what you are saying is that most exchanges</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of goods and services are not sales</span><br/>
<br/>
The goods are not sold, AND they are not exchanged.<br/>
<br/>
This is easy to see for a single <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, and probably<br/>
nobody will dispute the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of an<br/>
Avocado tree - even if he <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s another to harvest<br/>
that fruit, does not *buy* those <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects because he<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>s them already - as a side-effect of his <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing<br/>
the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(the tree, <a href="land.htm">land</a> and water rights)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
This <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>e of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion applies to all industries.<br/>
<br/>
We, the people, can <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the internet as clusters<br/>
of peers who invest for the purpose of receiving<br/>
that connectivity without <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing more than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
----<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine you have several <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ters within your<br/>
home that you want to have connected together.<br/>
<br/>
You are not connecting to anything outside of your<br/>
house, but are just creating an internal <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
You buy the wires and routers and maybe hire<br/>
someone to <a href="install.htm">install</a> and configure that equipment.<br/>
<br/>
You must also <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> any other <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s such as the<br/>
electricity and any sort of upkeep those <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es<br/>
require to keep them operational.<br/>
<br/>
Obviously you do not send yourself a bill in the <a href="mail.htm">mail</a><br/>
every month and then <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> that bill <a href="back.htm">back</a> to yourself.<br/>
<br/>
This is so obvious it may be too boring to consider.<br/>
<br/>
But bear with me for a few more s<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>ds, as it<br/>
becomes very interesting as we scale this <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a><br/>
to more and more <a href="user.htm">user</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
----<br/>
Now <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ine you talk to your neighbor about your<br/>
<a href="new.htm">new</a> internal <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> and you both decide it would<br/>
be fun to run a wire between your houses to share<br/>
<a href="file.htm">file</a>s and be connected for other reasons.<br/>
<br/>
You both pitch-in to buy the wires and probably the<br/>
neighbor <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s for the router that will sit in his house.<br/>
<br/>
You must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all of these initial <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, and continue<br/>
to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of electricity <small>(until you finally <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d<br/>
or buy a photo-voltaic array...)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Now, there is no reason for each of you to *buy* that<br/>
connectivity from your collective self. You just <a href="pay.htm">pay</a><br/>
the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s and that is it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
----<br/>
Now comes the <a href="part.htm">part</a> that for some reason is confusing<br/>
to most people.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine your neighbor also connects to *his* neighbor<br/>
and you to another, and those to more, until there are<br/>
hundreds and then thousands and even possibly<br/>
millions and billions of people connected.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>That* intranet/internet would be <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed buy the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s<br/>
of that service.<br/>
<br/>
They must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of being connected,<br/>
but cannot <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, since they are not buying that<br/>
service from anyone - but <a href="own.htm">own</a> it already as a side-<br/>
effect of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of those <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ectives.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> How, in the transition to this <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el are portions</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> in the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion I assume)</small> allocated?</span><br/>
<br/>
Simply according to the % of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-10-2011:</span> <a href="imput.htm">Imput</a>ed <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion<br/>
Michel Bauwens wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> maximising company legally obliged to favour its shareholders</span><br/>
<br/>
Hmm...<br/>
<br/>
What if we <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>t a crowd-<a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed corporation where the only<br/>
shareholders were the very consumers of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t?<br/>
<br/>
Their ROI for taking risk would be to avoid <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> - since the<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>er of an Apple tree does not *buy* the Apples from himself, but<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>s those <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ectives already, as a side-effect of his <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the<br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
There would no longer be "Vendor/Customer" relations to worry about<br/>
since the Vendor and the Customer would be one and the same!<br/>
<br/>
I wonder what disadvantages such an alignment might cause...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Suresh wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> This, in the purest sense, is what a co-op aims to be, is it not?</span><br/>
<br/>
In the <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el I <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose, the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is not sold <a href="back.htm">back</a> to each<br/>
inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>-consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>er, but it is already their <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty according to<br/>
the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they invested - whether with <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y or with labor.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of a milk cow does not buy the milk from himself, but <a href="own.htm">own</a>s<br/>
it already as a result of his <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the cow.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
A cooperative SELLS the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t <a href="back.htm">back</a> to the consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers - thereby<br/>
collecting !<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>! and coming under the scrutiny of government<br/>
restrictions <small>(for example it is illegal to sell raw milk in some <a href="part.htm">part</a><br/>
of the US)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
There are more <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erences, but I will cover those later if anyone has<br/>
interest in this "<a href="imput.htm">Imput</a>ed <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion" business <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el <small>(I hope so, as it<br/>
has fascinating implications, and DOES <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er - but from<br/>
the side of consumption instead of from the side of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
----<br/>
<small>(*)</small>In cases where an agent has invested more than he can <a href="use.htm">use</a> directly,<br/>
he can sell that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t to agents who do not yet have sufficient<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, but under the strict condition <small>(enforced by a Terms of<br/>
Operation over that organization)</small> that any <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> collected during<br/>
that sale be treated as an investment from that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er - so the<br/>
organization can grow in size while avoiding the troubles of<br/>
centralization and overaccumulation that plague nearly every other<br/>
endeavor that even begins to succeed.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004@<a class="ext" href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> there are <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> kinds of coops, and Patrick's vision is 'consumers'</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> only, which in a way <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers in the coop '<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed' by the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> consumers ... I find this problematic and prefer multiple stakeholder <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>els</span><br/>
<br/>
There is no reason to worry about the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers - for that is who I am<br/>
<a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ing, but am <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ing their ability to consume instead of<br/>
trying to <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>-up wages and avoid automation.<br/>
<br/>
Wishing the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines would just stop <small>(as John Henry)</small> will become less<br/>
and less of an option as the robots are coming to take the <a href="work.htm">work</a> away -<br/>
and we can be *happy* about that if we are <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing on the right side<br/>
of the equation!<br/>
<br/>
Furthermore, even without robots, wages and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will approach zero<br/>
as the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion become cheaper, since there will be no way<br/>
to stop willing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers from accessing those tools and thereby<br/>
providing the solutions consumers seek.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Michel Bauwens wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I remain unconvinced of a consumers-only <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ality, again, all</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> stakeholders should have a stake, all peers, not just consuming peers</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers can invest more than they are able to consume, but it won't do<br/>
them any good when the consumers already have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
needed to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> themselves from <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers who try to stop other peers<br/>
from doing that <a href="work.htm">work</a> by blocking access to the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers cannot <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> wages through <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership if other consumers<br/>
already have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership because <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ping wages requires<br/>
the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er be able to STOP other potential <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers from accessing<br/>
the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, and why would a group stop a peer from<br/>
bidding to do a <a href="job.htm">job</a> - in some cases even for <a href="free.htm">free</a> <small>(gratis)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Like I said, I don't care if <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers invest and <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> more of the Apple<br/>
orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> than they are able to consume, but how will that help them<br/>
<a href="prop.htm">prop</a> up wages when the other <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers will always have the option<br/>
to do the <a href="work.htm">work</a> for themselves or to hire the lowest bidder?<br/>
<br/>
When the consumers around those <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership,<br/>
they will not be buying the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t from anyone, but will <a href="own.htm">own</a> it already<br/>
as a side-effect of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of those <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ectives.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> if this type of consumer coop</span><br/>
<br/>
This is absolutely NOT a Consumer Cooperative.<br/>
<br/>
1,)</small> Consumer Cooperatives *sell* the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t <a href="back.htm">back</a> to the <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers and<br/>
collect a <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> during that transaction that a committee then doles<br/>
out in a Tyranny of the Majority fashion.<br/>
<br/>
1a.)</small> <a href="imput.htm">Imput</a>ed <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion only sells <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t to non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, and only<br/>
when there is surplus, and treats that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as an investment from<br/>
that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er - causing <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership and control to be automatically<br/>
distributed at the point of sale <a href="back.htm">back</a> to the actor who was willing to<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for it. This system minimizes and nearly eliminates the <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ing<br/>
of goods since the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es does not buy the <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ective, but<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>s it already as a result of his <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es. The <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ing of<br/>
goods will tend toward zero but does not reach stasis because of<br/>
<a href="new.htm">new</a>comers into the system <small>(even just babies being born)</small>, and because<br/>
people's interests change across time.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Consumer Cooperatives are "Democratically Controlled" with<br/>
one-member/one-vote.<br/>
<br/>
2a.)</small> <a href="imput.htm">Imput</a>ed <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion is far more autarchic- where any member can<br/>
'fork' his portion of the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es and secede from the union or sell<br/>
those shares if a split is attempted that is finer than reasonable<br/>
divisibility <small>(you can't both feed a single milk-cow grain and NOT feed<br/>
that cow grain, but can divide a herd)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
2b.)</small> Each member has exactly as much vote power as he has <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
If you <a href="own.htm">own</a> 11% of a roto-tiller and your neighbor <a href="own.htm">own</a>s 22%, then you<br/>
have only half as much vote power in decisions such as "how often<br/>
should we change the oil".<br/>
<br/>
3.)</small> Every Consumer Cooperative I <a href="know.htm">know</a> of is only concerned with buying<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts that were made by Capitalists.<br/>
<br/>
3a.)</small> <a href="imput.htm">Imput</a>ed <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion is primarily about <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership and control of<br/>
the entire tree of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion - recursively, and <a href="work.htm">work</a>s toward a<br/>
Vertically Integrated Commons where we, the people, <a href="own.htm">own</a> the farms and<br/>
factories and <a href="land.htm">land</a> and water rights and all the other <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es and<br/>
supporting <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es required to re<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e those things.<br/>
<br/>
There are other <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erences I don't remember right now, but please do<br/>
not call my <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osal a Consumer Cooperative, because the<br/>
organizational forms are vastly <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> both in structure and in<br/>
results.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> turns out to be successfull, more people would</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> choose it <small>(of course, this can only happen in a truly <a href="free.htm">free</a> society, so this</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> is quite hypothetical, and political transformations will be needed before</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> such type of <a href="free.htm">free</a> experimentation can occur)</small></span><br/>
<br/>
We don't need to transform politicians, and do not have enough <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y<br/>
to buy such changes anyway.<br/>
<br/>
All we need to do is <a href="start.htm">start</a> businesses that are <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed and <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by<br/>
Consumers and that treat <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er investment.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Aaron Huslage wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I would love to understand this more fully but it may not be germane to the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> topic of this list. Do you have links to more info or could you provide more</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> detail off-list?</span><br/>
<br/>
This very much applies to this list if we intend to collectively <a href="own.htm">own</a><br/>
and control <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the physical layer.<br/>
<br/>
We, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s, can invest to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> wires, cables, satellites, etc.<br/>
needed to provide internet connectivity.<br/>
<br/>
We *ALREADY* <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of those material Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
And we *ALSO* <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> <small>(<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
So it is trivial to see that we could collectively afford to do so,<br/>
for we already <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for everything anyway, but simply do it a bit late,<br/>
and without being organized for our <a href="own.htm">own</a> purposes.<br/>
<br/>
Some of my thought on this are at <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.net/User_Owned">http://P2PFoundation.net/User_Owned</a><br/>
- though I need some help polishing those <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-03-2011:</span><br/>
I just noticed:<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://AnDevUni.org">http://AnDevUni.org</a><br/>
<br/>
''<br/>
The Android Developers Union<br/>
<br/>
We, the members and supporters of the Android Developers Union,<br/>
are fed up with the conditions of the Android Market. We are tired of<br/>
being treated like sharecroppers on Google's digital plantation! We<br/>
have <a href="compile.htm">compile</a>d a list of seven demands which Google can implement to<br/>
improve the Market. Implementing these demands will absolutely improve<br/>
the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing conditions for Android developers, thereby improving the<br/>
Android <a href="ecos.htm">ecos</a>ystem and giving a better experience to our customers.<br/>
''<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Notice their approach is the same as <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional unions: To create<br/>
<a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial scarcity of some <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>.<br/>
<br/>
This approach is destined to fail as the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion continues<br/>
to become cheaper.<br/>
<br/>
Wages and <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>s approach zero as Barriers to Entry are reduced.<br/>
<br/>
This applies also to the "<a href="3d.htm">3D</a> Printing" and "Tabletop Manufacturing"<br/>
phenomenon - since, when *anyone* can manufacture some thing, there is<br/>
no longer any way to <a href="prop.htm">prop</a> Wages, and the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e and<br/>
<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> will be meaningless <small>(<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is undefined when Consumers <a href="own.htm">own</a> the<br/>
Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
The only viable approach I can see is to begin <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ing the "other<br/>
side of the equation" -> meaning, we must <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er's ability<br/>
to Consume by helping them organize to have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion from which they need the Outputs instead of trying to <a href="own.htm">own</a><br/>
the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion for which they happen to have <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s in<br/>
operating.<br/>
<br/>
So, instead of <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers trying to <a href="own.htm">own</a> the factory where they <a href="work.htm">work</a>, they<br/>
instead direct-invest* in things like Milk Dairies, Chicken Farms,<br/>
Avocado Orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a>s, etc. because those are the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of the things<br/>
they actually need, and let the potential Consumers of what they<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a> that factory.<br/>
<br/>
<small>(*)</small> By 'direct-invest' I mean the Consumers would invest to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the<br/>
Fields, Farms etc. and be 'paid' <small>(their ROI)</small> in <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t instead of<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> - for the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t would never be sold since it would already be<br/>
the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of those who intend to actually <a href="use.htm">use</a> it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-02-2011:</span><br/>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson@<a class="ext" href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Hi Patrick</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> we can set up cooperatives :)</small></span><br/>
<br/>
If they are very carefully defined, then we might be able to simply call them 'Cooperatives'.<br/>
<br/>
But most Cooperatives I <a href="know.htm">know</a> of *sell* the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t <a href="back.htm">back</a> to the collective <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers and therefore collect <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> from them!<br/>
<br/>
This causes control to concentrate into the hands of a few - usually a "democratically elected" committee and causes many other subtle problems.<br/>
<br/>
What I describe is a "short circuit" across the typical market.<br/>
<br/>
Where the consumers do not buy the finished goods, but <a href="own.htm">own</a> them already - even before they are completed - as a side-effect of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of those goods.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
If you <a href="own.htm">own</a> an Apple tree, you do not *buy* the apples from yourself.<br/>
<br/>
If you and your neighbor <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> an Apple, you need not *buy* the apples from your collective 'self'.<br/>
<br/>
If you 999 other people <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> an Apple orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a>, you need not *buy* the apples from your collective 'self'.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
This has other benefits such as:<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> Since the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is not sold, there is no chance for the government to collect sales tax.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Since the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is not sold, there is no chance for the government to disallow that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <small>(buying raw milk is illegal in many <a href="part.htm">part</a>s of the US)</small>.<br/>