-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
diary-jul-2010.htm
1320 lines (1317 loc) · 113 KB
/
diary-jul-2010.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-jul-2010 </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/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-31-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
Subject: Why do we not choose Permaculture?<br/>
<br/>
I am trying to find out why our species has decided to move so very far away from local sufficiency toward a dangerous dependecy upon centralized <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
We have the <a href="land.htm">Land</a>, Water and willing <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers, so what is the problem?<br/>
<br/>
Why don't we grow Almonds, Avocados and Olives, in our cities <small>(where climates allow)</small>?<br/>
<br/>
Why are there not grape vines, berry bushes and spice plants in all the places we <a href="install.htm">install</a>ed un<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive species?<br/>
<br/>
I think there are some logistic problems we have overlooked and am trying to enumerate them so each can be addressed.<br/>
<br/>
Please respond if any sound wrong or to add those that are missing.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> GOVERNMENTS<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> Taxation as our system of <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing public <a href="work.htm">work</a>s requires everyone in that jurisdiction <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for every project even if they are not interested. It is the primary cause of the "Tyranny of the Majority".<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> There are social mores against governments being truly <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive. Some may think food should be a public service, but those with enough would not <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> - mostly because of problem #1.<br/>
<br/>
3.)</small> Even if a government were to attempt permaculture, the representatives would likely not see the benefits of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the equipment and hiring the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, and so would hire a private business to do the <a href="work.htm">work</a> anyway - and so we, the taxpayers who <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed the project would likely be required to *buy* the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts <a href="back.htm">back</a> from ourselves thereby being exposed to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> to those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers and would also loose the high-level control such as if subgroups wanted to avoid herbicides/pesticides, etc.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> BUSINESSES<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> Most businesses view everything in terms of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, so would not care about increasing local resilience but would instead weigh the decision on how much they could overcharge the customer.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> The question would viewed as a choice as to whether the business should increase their diversity. Most <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers would likely find it a silly <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osition as they see agriculture as a strictly separate occupation that has nothing to do with their core goals.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> INDIVIDUALS<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er does not have the time and <a href="skill.htm">skill</a> to maintain these more sensitive organisms and the complex <a href="ecos.htm">ecos</a>ystem they should enjoy.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er does not have the time and <a href="skill.htm">skill</a> and equipment to harvest, process and <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts.<br/>
<br/>
3.)</small> There is usually "too much" of each of those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts for a single <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, and so much of the harvest goes to waste, causing logistic problems of 'mess' and also some psychological trauma.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-30-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
Subject: <a href="free.htm">free</a> lunch?<br/>
Rough draft of Stage0 toward <a href="citizen owned.htm">Citizen Owned</a> <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Most every home and business <a href="own.htm">own</a>er dedicates <a href="land.htm">Land</a>, Water, Tools and Labor tending non-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive plants while <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive plants are<br/>
shunned because:<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er does not have the time and <a href="skill.htm">skill</a> to maintain these more sensitive organisms and the complex <a href="ecos.htm">ecos</a>ystem they should enjoy.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er does not have the time and <a href="skill.htm">skill</a> and equipment to harvest, process and <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts.<br/>
<br/>
3.)</small> There is usually "too much" of each of those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts for a single <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, and so much of the harvest goes to waste, causing logistic problems of 'mess' and also some psychological trauma.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
But there are many people in need of food that *do* have the time and <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s we need.<br/>
<br/>
How to pair them up? And how to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it worth the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers' trouble?<br/>
<br/>
We do this by noticing the profound value in the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t itself.<br/>
<br/>
We strike a deal between <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers and <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers thus:<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
A.)</small> We will <a href="install.htm">install</a> beautiful yet <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive plants for the same <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e as non-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive plants.<br/>
<br/>
B.)</small> We will optionally contract with you to tend those plants and harvest the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts in perpetutity at NO <a href="cost.htm">COST</a> to you except we will retain some % of that harvest as <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment.<br/>
<br/>
C.)</small> We will optionally process and <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e your % at NO <a href="cost.htm">COST</a> to you except we will retain some further % of that harvest as <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment.<br/>
<br/>
D.)</small> We will optionally prepare your % into advanced solutions, even fully prepared meals at NO <a href="cost.htm">COST</a> to you except we will retain some % further of that harvest as <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
For example, if the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er allows us to plant 4 Pecan trees, he can receive 4 bushels of un<a href="shell.htm">shell</a>ed Pecans, or 2 bushels of <a href="shell.htm">shell</a>ed Pecans, or 1 bushel of <a href="shell.htm">shell</a>ed Pecans <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ed by us, or 8 Pecan pies, or 4 pecan pies <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ed by us, or 2 fancy pecan-chicken dinners, etc.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers want <a href="land.htm">land</a>scaping; we will give them permascaping.<br/>
<br/>
But instead of a one-time <a href="install.htm">install</a>ation that the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers must then fret about, we continue service of those organisms in perpetuity and manage the outputs to whatever degree those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers decide.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-30-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
<br/>
Subject: Debugging <a href="source freedom.htm">Source Freedom</a> <small>(was: Patrick Andersons <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osal)</small><br/>
<br/>
Matt wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> how do you translate those <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s to the community</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> in a way that shows their 'investment'.</span><br/>
<br/>
Who do you mean when you say "their investment"?<br/>
<br/>
I claim <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> must be treated as *<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er* investment.<br/>
<br/>
I say a Consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing a <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> will be <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing an investment - but a special kind of investment that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s in *<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t* instead of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
I don't want the faceless 'community' to take control of that investment - for then it will be thrown into a slush <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> controlled by some committee that we will then be fighting to "do the right thing" just as we already do with almost any form of government we <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently face.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> In solving that problem, solves another problem;</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the voting system for what to do with that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
If <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is treated as I suggest, then voting can be accomplished simply by asserting your rights in <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership. In other words, if you <a href="own.htm">own</a> 21% of a roto-tiller, then you have 21% of the votes over that <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine.<br/>
<br/>
Even though I hope we can <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a situation that looks and feels like a 'commons', I think it is important that we allow individuals and sub-groups to act mostly independent of that conglomerate so the "Tyranny of the Majority" can be kept under control. I don't want anyone without <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in my roto-tiller to be able to say how often I must change the oil, etc.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The only abuse I can think of in this system so</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> far is example:</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> two single moms bartering babysitting services</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> between each other at a ridiculous hourly rate</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to generate more 'voting' points.</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm saying we won't have any such problems if we notice the direct connection between <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing and voting and then allow people to <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> only when they want that service.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="curr.htm">Curr</a>ent taxation systems take our <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s <small>(votes)</small> early on and then asks some 'representatives' to try doling them out in some 'fair' manner which can never have the fine-grained control that I describe and so we usually <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for all kinds of projects that we would otherwise never <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-29-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> danny jp wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> A P2P <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> cannot by definition jointly <a href="own.htm">own</a> a house.</span><br/>
<br/>
By definition?<br/>
<br/>
Who has the authority to define what a P2P <a href="net.htm">Net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> can and cannot do?<br/>
<br/>
Within the context of P2P, what are 'definitions', and what is 'authority'?<br/>
<br/>
Could Peers ever define terms in a P2P manner?<br/>
<br/>
Interesting... one of the central problems we face in <a href="collab.htm">collab</a>oration is the trouble we have <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>ing on the definition of terms.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> The house would have to be split up into shares</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> managed in a trust, and then individual nodes</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> would <a href="own.htm">own</a> or owe a given number of such units.</span><br/>
<br/>
By what reasoning do you claim the house *must* be managed as you are describing?<br/>
<br/>
Maybe you are right, but maybe you are wrong, and maybe there are many other organizational forms that would <a href="work.htm">work</a> with similar degrees of success.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> In this case the trust manager either has to have</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> a link with each joint <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, <small>(the trust manager</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the house as an asset and 'owes' the other</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> nodes their share)</small>.</span><br/>
<br/>
The details of how <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership <small>(some would say 'sharing')</small> of <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty should be handled is at the very heart of the discussion of why corporations and governments get it wrong, and how we, the people, need to do it <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ly.<br/>
<br/>
Here are some of the ways people <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently choose to share <a href="land.htm">land</a> and <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings.<br/>
<br/>
Which would you say is closest to your vision of the best way to organize <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership in a P2P <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>?:<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_Estate">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_Estate</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Condop">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Condop</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_club">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_club</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_ownership">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_ownership</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_society">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_society</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_organization">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_organization</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenancy">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenancy</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeshare">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeshare</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Also, how do you p<a href="resume.htm">resume</a> the various nodes managed</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> to get together to 'jointly' <a href="own.htm">own</a> the house in the</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> first place?</span><br/>
<br/>
I have been <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing on this problem lately, and hope to soon <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a presentation showing how we can begin by:<br/>
<br/>
0.)</small> Determine the minimum complexity of a <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> <small>(or you might say 'community')</small> needed to host developers who can only <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> with "Commitments to <a href="work.htm">Work</a>".<br/>
<br/>
This minimum complexity is a "Basic Outcome" needed to keep these <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers sustained physically without <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing interest or <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> outside of that community.<br/>
<br/>
The inescapable <a href="part.htm">part</a>s I have <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ntified include: housing/<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age, food/drugs, water/sanitation.<br/>
<br/>
The absolute bare-bones <a href="start.htm">start</a>up scenario could provide temporary housing/<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age with tents and food/drugs through bulk-purchase until we have the time to <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d the houses and <a href="install.htm">install</a> the organisms.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> Organize middle-class consumers to prepay with "Outside <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y" to buy the <a href="land.htm">Land</a>, Water, Tools, etc. needed to begin. These inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s will usually be paid with a single <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
For example, consumers who prepay for raw milk will actually be investing in the Milk Cattle, <a href="land.htm">Land</a>, Water-Rights, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, etc. needed to 'host' that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and will be 'paid' when they receive their portion of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t each day or week.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Attract <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers to sign contracts of "Commitment to <a href="work.htm">Work</a>" to supply the labor needed to begin. These inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s will usually be paid with a variety of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts available within the community to cover all of their physical needs.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments to these inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s in both cases will come from the outputs of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion that takes place within that <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
So a <a href="work.htm">work</a>er might commit to <a href="work.htm">work</a> milking cattle while recieving basic meals, shelter, etc. as his return.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-29-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
Alex Rollin wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I wondered if others would <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> that</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> bilateral and multilateral trust can</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> occur in a P2P <a href="net.htm">Net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> and that this</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> would by definition form a Commons</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> when the trust is multilateral.</span><br/>
<br/>
Even though the word "multilateral" might be interpreted as either of: one-to-many, many-to-one or many-to-many, it made me think more about "multi-<a href="own.htm">own</a>er", or what I've been thinking of as "P2P Clustering" and how many facets of an <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy are out of reach until a sort of "Critical Mass" is reached.<br/>
<br/>
So we 'trust' <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>s and corporations and governments, even when they treat us badly, because ... well for many reasons that I will try to enumerate in another post.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
On a somewhat unrelated <a href="note.htm">note</a>:<br/>
<span class="quot">> danny jp wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> the reason we <a href="use.htm">use</a> public debt as outside <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> is that it is easier to trust taxpayers to meet future</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> commitments <small>(since they can be compelled to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>)</small></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> than it is a given private <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
This <small>(probably accidentally)</small> implies we would not trust "outside <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y" unless it were debt-based.<br/>
<br/>
I claim the trust comes from the clustering alone which in turn grants the "right by might" authority to enforce that social-contract.<br/>
<br/>
This will <a href="work.htm">work</a> for most any type of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y - whether it is based on debt, is simply fiat, is <a href="back.htm">back</a>ed by precious metals, is <a href="back.htm">back</a>ed by commodities, or <small>(my preference)</small> is <a href="back.htm">back</a>ed by a combination of the <a href="title.htm">Title</a> over the "Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es" plus a legally-binding "Labor Bond" from a qualified <a href="work.htm">work</a>er or, <small>(even better)</small>, from a group of <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers who "Commit to Apply the <a href="skill.htm">Skill</a>s" needed to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e some *future* good.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-27-2010:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://CommunityTools.info">CommunityTools.info</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-27-2010:</span> Not yet Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://sharewiki.org/en/Shareful_Invitation/Case_Studies/Consumable_Goods">http://sharewiki.org/en/Shareful_Invitation/Case_Studies/Consumable_Goods</a><br/>
<br/>
Food, drugs, <a href="soap.htm">soap</a>s, lotions, cosmetics are Consumable Goods, so to share is to allow permanent and exclusive access to some portion.<br/>
<br/>
There are <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s involved in the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion of Consumables.<br/>
<br/>
We must purchase <a href="land.htm">Land</a>, Tools, Water-Rights and maybe Fuel to begin agriculture.<br/>
<br/>
We must purchase Seeds, Spores and Eggs needed to 'innoculate' the <a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Water.<br/>
<br/>
We must tend and adjust this <a href="ecos.htm">ecos</a>ystem until it can sustain itself.<br/>
<br/>
We must carefully and 'sustainably' harvest <a href="part.htm">part</a>s of the outputs of that <a href="ecos.htm">ecos</a>ystem.<br/>
<br/>
We must process those outputs by jarring, drying, etc.<br/>
<br/>
processing <small>(drying, bottling, etc.)</small>, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ing <small>(root cellar)</small>, and preparing <small>(cooking)</small>, presenting <small>(waitress)</small>, and cleanup <small>(dish washing and securing any <a href="left.htm">left</a>-overs)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="land.htm">Land</a> needed for each step.<br/>
Tools needed for each step.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
obtaining, preparing<br/>
<br/>
Access: External taxes or uncontrollable alien fees or <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>.<br/>
Exclude: The <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of disallowing other solutions in the same <a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e or time, or the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of disallowing other <a href="user.htm">user</a>s.<br/>
Invest: Capital is expensive, and must be purchased or constructed. Some Consumers are willing and able to pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>.<br/>
<a href="insur.htm">Insur</a>e: Done once we have gathered the "replacement <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<a href="install.htm">Install</a>: tools, materials, labor<br/>
Maintain: tools, materials, labor<br/>
Operate: tools, materials, labor<br/>
Pollute: noise, smell, poison<br/>
Risk: Any attempt at <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion may fail<br/>
Secure: locks, <a href="cam.htm">cam</a>eras, labor<br/>
<a href="stor.htm">Stor</a>e: size, shelter, temperature, sun, soil, ventilation, bedding, labor<br/>
<a href="work.htm">Work</a>: This is <a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulated as "wage" when <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing for another.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
We *do* collect <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> from him, but <a href="use.htm">use</a> that overpayment to invest *for* him. So if he paid $5 for a hamburger that only <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> us $3.75 to deliver, Then we would be investing that $1.25 by purchasing wheat fields <small>(for the bun)</small>, tomato fields <small>(tomatoes and ketchup)</small>, spice fields, beef cattle, etc. and all the tools and wages needed to turn those <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es into future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts - so he incrementally gains <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership to such a degree that he finally <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>s enough of the entire tree of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t that he has maximized control and minimumized <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e <small>(<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e will reach <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-27-2010:</span> Not yet Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://sharewiki.org/en/Shareful_Invitation/Case_Studies/Durable_Goods">http://sharewiki.org/en/Shareful_Invitation/Case_Studies/Durable_Goods</a><br/>
<br/>
Most tools are Durable Goods, so to share is to schedule temporary and usually exclusive access to the entire <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine across some a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of time.<br/>
<br/>
One way to view the problem is to consider this a matter of 'utilization'. We want to keep the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine as 'busy' as possible with as few 'conflicts' in scheduling as possible so it is worth the initial investment, and so those <a href="user.htm">user</a>s 'satisfied' - <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing room for even more <a href="user.htm">user</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
Some tools are more easily scheduled than others because of <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erences in 'predictability' and also from <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence in 'priority'.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> Needing the <a href="use.htm">use</a> of an ambulance is very <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult to predict and very high priority.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> Needing the <a href="use.htm">use</a> of a sewer snake is very <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult to predict but only slightly high priority.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> Needing the <a href="use.htm">use</a> of a concrete saw to solve a long-standing problem with your side-walk very easy to predict and very low priority.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
These savings are often overlooked as being the result of not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing Wages to <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, but that <a href="work.htm">work</a> must be done either way, and we <a href="know.htm">know</a> the <a href="rent.htm">Rent</a>al agency or the Capitalist <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>er enjoys <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> while <a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulating Wages as a <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>, so where is the confusion?<br/>
<br/>
For example: Let's say a for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> business has hired <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ees to go door-to-door offering to roto-till a garden patch.<br/>
<br/>
The business <a href="own.htm">own</a>er offers the service for some fee - say $1 per square meter while <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ee operating the tiller say $10 per hour.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er has other <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s such as management, initial investment,<br/>
gasoline, oil, replacing <a href="part.htm">part</a>s, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age, <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance, and maybe many<br/>
others.<br/>
<br/>
But we <a href="know.htm">know</a> he is charging more that these <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s if he<br/>
is reporting a <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> - for that is the definition of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> =<br/>
"<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
Now let's look at what happens when the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the<br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <small>(the tiller)</small> are also the consumers of the outputs<br/>
<small>(the tilled ground)</small>: They must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the same <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s as<br/>
the Capitalist, including Wages to the operator and<br/>
mechanics, but they wouldn't be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the extra a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a><br/>
called <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> - for who could they possibly <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to?<br/>
<br/>
When the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es are Consumer-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed, they could probably <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the<br/>
<a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers slightly more <small>(say $12 per hour)</small> and *still* <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> less since<br/>
they wouldn't be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the unnecessary burden of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
There is <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="work.htm">work</a> involved in the act of organization,<br/>
but that <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(wages to management)</small> must be paid<br/>
either way.<br/>
<br/>
So what is keeping us from organizing and cooperatively<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, even <a href="land.htm">land</a>?<br/>
<br/>
I think <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the problem is a long-standing belief that<br/>
whoever possesses the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate those <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines<br/>
should be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
But doesn't the above argument show that efficiency<br/>
<small>(as in the lowest <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e)</small> comes when <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is in<br/>
the hands of those that consume the final output?<br/>
<br/>
Another <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the problem is in figuring out how those<br/>
re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es should be shared among the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
It is a <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult, sticky situation that most people would<br/>
rather just avoid altogether because of the forecasted<br/>
in-fighting they perceive would occur.<br/>
<br/>
It seems such a group could write some 'rules' about<br/>
how to schedule access, and how much each individual<br/>
must compensate the others for any extra wear or exclusion<br/>
they cause.<br/>
<br/>
I see such a contract, if '<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ly' written, would be the only<br/>
thing our society needs to begin down the road of<br/>
peace and abundance.<br/>
<br/>
A single <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine can be shared among a finite number<br/>
of people. As the number of consumers attempting to<br/>
utilize the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine increases, at some point it will be<br/>
impossible to fullfill those requests with a single <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine.<br/>
<br/>
If the collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers have the time-sharing of that<br/>
<a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine setup so that anyone wanting to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> it are<br/>
bidding against each other, then more time slots will be filled.<br/>
<br/>
People that want to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> close to '<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>', and are willing to lose some<br/>
sleep will <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> at 2am, while other people will be willing to "fight<br/>
it out" for a slot at 12 noon in a bid war.<br/>
<br/>
As the dueling bidders raise their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e for that time<br/>
slot, they are *proving* that the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent number of <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines cannot<br/>
fill peak demand, and - since that "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" will be invested<br/>
for the winning bidder toward buying ANOTHER <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine, the 'system'<br/>
should be self-stablizing as those extra <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments will be invested<br/>
toward another <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine until the number of <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines is sufficient to<br/>
cover the needs of that community.<br/>
<br/>
Furthermore, each sub-community that develops around each of those<br/>
<a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines can then secede from the whole if they decide to treat their<br/>
<a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine in a <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> manner <small>(say changing the oil more often)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Cooperative consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is quite rare today, but there are a<br/>
few cases where a group of friends wanting a private airplane <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a<br/>
"shared investment", and then <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> the plane from the collective<br/>
others whenever they want to <a href="use.htm">use</a> it. None of those people need the<br/>
ability to fly themselves, they can just hire a pilot and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> that<br/>
wage as a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> while still saving <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y by not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Another example is shared <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of a vacation house. The<br/>
for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> "Time Share" industry has grown around that desire, but I'm<br/>
referring to the less common case when a private group of people buy a<br/>
house that they share amongst themselves in whatever way they see fit.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I choose to apply the contract to that Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e and begin <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ing it to others for a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e that is higher that my <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of: investment, maintenance <small>(oil, fuel, wear <a href="part.htm">part</a>s)</small>, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age, wages to any <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers I had to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>, wages to myself for managing it all, etc.<br/>
<br/>
Since I am collecting <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, and since I am choosing to apply the contract, I must save those overpayments until I have enough to invest for all the people that overpaid to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> the tiller during that round of growth.<br/>
<br/>
In most cases, <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will not be 'selling' any of their <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent holdings, and so the overpaying <a href="user.htm">user</a>s will usually be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing toward the purchase of *more* Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Let's say, after a year or so there is finally enough <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y in the '<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er-<a href="fund.htm">fund</a>' to buy another tiller.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
It is a little unclear to me what we should do right here.<br/>
<br/>
On the one hand it <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es some sense to let the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers invest the <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y and then release the <a href="fract.htm">fract</a>ional-<a href="title.htm">title</a>s to that Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e to the group of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are generally more informed about what would be the best investment in that field, but it seems unfair and very wrong to not involve the end-<a href="user.htm">user</a> when it is his <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom we are trying to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>...<br/>
<br/>
This needs to be outlined more clearly and may need to be <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the contract.<br/>
<br/>
So, even though I think the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers would probably be <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing the investments, the more important point is that those original <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> become the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="title.htm">title</a> holders of that <a href="new.htm">new</a> Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
To answer your question more directly: I would not be 'expanding' my <a href="own.htm">own</a> holdings, but would instead be acting a sort of "growth conduit" for those who do not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The question is, how does selling me a share affect the value</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of everyone else's share?</span><br/>
<br/>
Where you say "selling me a share" I will rewrite "my <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>". So your question becomes:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> how does my <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> affect the value of everyone else's share?</span><br/>
<br/>
When you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, that overpayment is held with the overpayments of many other <a href="user.htm">user</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
After there are sufficient <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s to move forward, those <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s become your <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in more Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es such as a <a href="new.htm">new</a> farm or another factory.<br/>
<br/>
You are not taking any value from anyone else, you are <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing your <a href="own.htm">own</a> growth through the collective purchase of the material means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion needed to meet your <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Suppose there are a million shares</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by various people, and the farm sells me one share.</span><br/>
<br/>
It is probably confusing to think of this in terms of <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional 'shares' because what I'm talking about it a % of <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership shared among *only that group of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers*.<br/>
<br/>
There are no committees or board-members or any such bureaucracy unless that individual group decides they want to subject themselves to such a system of rule. Very large groups may find some need for variations of such self-imposed structure.<br/>
<br/>
Groups of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers using the contract are *fully independent* of each other. Some <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will decide they want the oil changed in their tiller every 200 hrs, while another group may decide they will do it every 300 hrs.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Does that mean that there are now 1,000,0001 shares <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and everyone else's share has gone down a little in value?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Or do they get a dividend?</span><br/>
<br/>
If by 'dividend' you mean "will the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers receive some of the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward?" then the answer is 'no'.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is treated as an investment from the <a href="user.htm">user</a> who paid it because <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> measures a <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's lack of <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
----<br/>
<br/>
<small>(*)</small> THE CONTRACT is the <small>(as yet incomplete)</small> legally-binding "Terms of Operation" that <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers can choose to apply to their <a href="own.htm">own</a> Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<small>(**)</small> When there is just 1 <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is easily 'hidden' when the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s himself excessive wages which takes from the pool that would have otherwise been labeled <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. This ability diminishes as <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is multiplexed, since the other <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will then demand such <a href="job.htm">job</a>s be put 'on the market' to lower their <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-27-2010:</span> Not yet Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
Subject: Risks and Advantages in <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-24-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
Ryan Lanham wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> That is the basis of a barter <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy because no one</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> can <a href="own.htm">own</a> every <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>e of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for their many demands.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> It would lead to massive and instantaneous poverty.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Are you saying diversified <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership requires barter?<br/>
<br/>
Why do "mutual <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s" not cause this problem?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-24-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a> Sharing '<a href="file.htm">file</a>s' is only the tip of the hideous iceberg.<br/>
<br/>
Disallowing the copying of lifeforms and medicines <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es this <a href="new.htm">new</a> imperialism much more immediately and obviously against the original goals of society.<br/>
<br/>
This disgusting tyranny is a result of inverted priorities caused by the homicidal and even eventually suicidal direction we follow as we attempt to keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
For as long as we are unwilling to question the reason for incorporation and the meaning of this value called '<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>' will we be confused about why our efforts can never address the problems they pretend to want solved.<br/>
<br/>
To solve any problem in any permanent fashion is to destroy <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> which is only a good thing when the initial inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are those who intend to benefit from the results of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
And such a system can only be held in place if any <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> collected from latecomers is treated as an investment from those <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers so they become <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers as well - <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ing them from <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing tribute to knights such as Bill Gates.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-22-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
<br/>
Ryan Lanham wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Wheat is going to be under pressure because it is a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> hot wet summer in the US...so volumes will again be high.</span><br/>
<br/>
Hey Ryan,<br/>
<br/>
Thanks for the response.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
We need to question our long-standing assumption about how markets must <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
When you say wheat will be "under pressure" because of "high volumes" you are saying <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es go down as Supply goes up.<br/>
<br/>
This is the <a href="econ.htm">Econ</a> 101 argument that Abundance is Bad and Scarcity is Good because of how Supply reduces Demand.<br/>
<br/>
It is assumed that we must keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> because of our previous assumption that the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion <small>(the farms for example)</small> are not <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the Consumers who need that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
But let's open our minds to allow a <a href="new.htm">new</a> way of thinking about this.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine 10,000 Consumers buy a large wheat farm from a farmer who is going <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>rupt. They re-hire that same farmer and his <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ees to continue <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing there.<br/>
<br/>
At the end of the season the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers/Consumers do not buy the wheat from themselves <small>(this is <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> from a co-op)</small>, but instead *already* <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t as a side-effect of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Tools.<br/>
<br/>
Over<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is not a problem in this <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el. These <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers don't need to destroy the grain or worry about <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es at all because they are not even 'playing' in that <a href="arena.htm">arena</a>.<br/>
<br/>
They can dump the excess by selling it 'at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>' or even by giving it away to the poor if they like, for it does them no harm.<br/>
<br/>
This <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>e of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion does not promote Scarcity because the reward for investment is the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t itself instead of trying to keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e and <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> during the usual post-facto exchange of the goods.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
This approach is the only form of organization I have found that does not otherwise *require* scarcity be perpetuated.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-22-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Devinder-Sharma.BlogSpot.com">Devinder-Sharma.BlogSpot.com</a> and <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
<br/>
Devinder Sharma wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> In 2008, wheat <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion was the highest.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> There was therefore no reason why wheat</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es should have soared to a record level.</span><br/>
<br/>
No reason? I'll give you the reasons:<br/>
<br/>
0.)</small> For-<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> Corporations care nothing about <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t except as a vehicle for extracting <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> during the exchange of finished goods.<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> requires Scarcity and scarcity is held in place initially by withholding access to the finished <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts and more completely by withholding access to the *<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es* of those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Our ignorant treatment of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as though it were a reward for the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers incents those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e decisions and write legislation that limits or destroys <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion to even further increase <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>. It is a dangerous positive-feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop.<br/>
<br/>
3.)</small> We can never fully solve the problems of society using such a <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el, for to do so would destroy the only reason for those entities to exist - to keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-20-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://MuniNetworks.org/sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/breaking-bb-monopoly.pdf">MuniNetworks.org/sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/breaking-bb-monopoly.pdf</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-20-2010:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://ClueGroup.com">ClueGroup.com</a> <span class="quot2">>>The Community <a href="land.htm">Land</a> <a href="use.htm">Use</a> and <a href="econ.htm">Econ</a>omics <small>(CLUE)</small> Group is a specialized consulting firm that helps communities create vibrant, dynamic downtowns and neighborhoods. We help local and <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e governments, developers, and non<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s design innovative downtown <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic development strategies, cultivate independent businesses, recycle hi<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ic <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, attract young talent, strengthen downtown management programs, and craft planning and <a href="land.htm">land</a> <a href="use.htm">use</a> tools that mitigate sprawl and stimulate town center development.</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-20-2010:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://CommunityBusinesses.BlogSpot.com">CommunityBusinesses.BlogSpot.com</a> <span class="quot2">>>A re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e companion to "Community-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed Businesses: How Communities Become Entrepreneurs" <small>(Main Street Now, April 2010)</small>.</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-20-2010:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://NewRules.org">NewRules.org</a> <span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-20-2010:</span> Posted to <a href="cloud.htm">Cloud</a>-<a href="compu.htm">Compu</a>ting-<a href="use.htm">Use</a>-Cases@<a class="ext" href="http://GoogleGroups.com">GoogleGroups.com</a><br/>
<br/>
Adam Purkiss wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> As a <a href="free.htm">free</a> software supporter and a <a href="cloud.htm">cloud</a> <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ting enthusiast I was</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="part.htm">part</a>icularly concerned with Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a>'s post declaring</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> essentially that SaaS was something to be avoided altogether in order to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> preserve our <a href="free.htm">free</a>doms. He <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>es "SaaS always subjects you to the power</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of the server operator, and the only remedy is, Don't <a href="use.htm">use</a> SaaS! Don't</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="use.htm">use</a> someone else's server to do your <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ting on data provided by</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> you."</span><br/>
<br/>
Hi Adam,<br/>
<br/>
I have been following the <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software Foundation and studying the social and <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic effects of the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> since around 1991.<br/>
<br/>
I was also saddened by the absolute terms <a href="use.htm">use</a>d by <a href="rms.htm">RMS</a> to condemn the sharing of <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware.<br/>
<br/>
The solution to this problem requires a deep r<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>sideration of why and how we <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently organize to share.<br/>
<br/>
Envision a <a href="cloud.htm">Cloud</a> which is fully <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed, <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed and controlled by the *<a href="user.htm">User</a>s* of that <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Here's a rough sketch of the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a:<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> Approach thousands of potential <a href="user.htm">User</a>s with an <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>ment to prepay for such access.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Their prepayment is <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to purchase the physical <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware and hire <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers to begin <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
3.)</small> These <a href="user.htm">User</a>-Inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are now <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers of this <a href="cloud.htm">cloud</a> which they control in some 'collective' or 'cooperative' manner enforced through a legally-binding Contract similar in purpose to a "Tennancy in Common <a href="agree.htm">Agree</a>ment". The details of this may be quite complicated.<br/>
<br/>
4.)</small> This, as described, should be sufficient to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom in the <a href="cloud.htm">Cloud</a>, but is not very interesting as just another private <a href="cloud.htm">cloud</a>.<br/>
<br/>
5.)</small> When these groups of <a href="user.htm">User</a>-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers begin allowing non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers to <a href="use.htm">use</a> these <a href="cloud.htm">Cloud</a> Services there is potential for abuse and over<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>ing.<br/>
<br/>
6.)</small> Because of this, the Contract must require any <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> be treated as an Investment from the <a href="user.htm">User</a> who paid it into more physical <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware - so the <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom of ALL <a href="user.htm">User</a>s approaches 'complete' as their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership approaches 'sufficient'.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-20-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
<br/>
So what human beings are issuing <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency, and how <a href="hard.htm">hard</a> is that <a href="work.htm">work</a>?<br/>
<br/>
Remember, issuance is not printing bills or minting coins - those are done by the Mint.<br/>
<br/>
You'll need a <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter terminal and the ability to occasionally enter very large numbers.<br/>
<br/>
All Income Tax in the US is not enough to cover even just the *Interest* on these loans.<br/>
<br/>
Is there no chance this could be done a little more efficiently?<br/>
<br/>
I would certainly be willing to hold down the '0' <a href="key.htm">key</a> for a Wage much less than all the Income Taxes paid by all citizens of the US.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I don't understand the argument that Private Corporations will do a better <a href="job.htm">job</a> than a Com<a href="promis.htm">promis</a>ed Government when the Private Corporations are the *<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e* of these com<a href="promis.htm">promis</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-19-2010:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_society">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_society</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-19-2010:</span> Joined <a class="ext" href="http://Dev.FlowPlace.org">Dev.FlowPlace.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-16-2010:</span> Watching "The Secret of Oz" trailer at <a class="ext" href="http://TheMoneyMasters.com/mm">http://TheMoneyMasters.com/mm</a> and full film at <a class="ext" href="http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTcyMjM1MjE2.html">http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTcyMjM1MjE2.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-16-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
Subject: Bonds VS Bills<br/>
<br/>
Thomas Edison wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> If our Nation can issue a dollar bond,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> it can issue a dollar bill.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The element that <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es the bond good</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> also <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es the bill good.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between the bond and the bill</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> lets <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y brokers <small>[<a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ers]</small> collect twice</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of the bond plus interest.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Whereas the bill <small>[<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency]</small> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s nobody but those</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> who contribute directly in some <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful way.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The People are the basis for government cr<a href="edit.htm">edit</a>.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Why then cannot the People have the benefit of their</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="own.htm">own</a> cr<a href="edit.htm">edit</a> by receiving non-interest bearing <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> instead of <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ers receiving the People's cr<a href="edit.htm">edit</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> in interest bearing bonds?</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> It is absurd to say that our country can issue 30 million</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> dollars in bonds and not 30 million dollars in <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency!</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Both are <a href="promis.htm">promis</a>es to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>; but one <a href="promis.htm">promis</a>e fattens</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the usurers and the other helps the People!</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Will P2P <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y be borrowed from debtors or created by peers?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-16-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
Subject: What is the Origin of our <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y Supply?<br/>
<br/>
Ryan Lanham wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> borrow some <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y based on collateral or your capacity to repay > <small>(e.g. from income)</small>...and voila...you've created <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y!</span><br/>
<br/>
I understand the rules of <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial-reserve <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ing cause even more <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y to be created when I enter into a debt.<br/>
<br/>
But that transaction cannot occur unless there was some 'base' <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y to begin with - the 'reserve'.<br/>
<br/>
I think it is called M0. Who creates the M0 supply?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I'm trying to find out where our <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y comes from *originally*.<br/>
<br/>
You may answer "a <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>". But then where did *they* get it from?<br/>
<br/>
Someone or some institution is declaring <small>(by fiat)</small> that <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y into existence, so *who* or *what* has that authority?<br/>
<br/>
It is like a variation the <a href="game.htm">game</a> of Monopoly<small>(R)</small> where the person "playing the <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>er" has an infinite supply of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y that he can create for himself whenever he likes without ever going into debt and yet all the other players must borrow from him.<br/>
<br/>
I'm not trying to question the morality of any <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>er as a person, I'm trying to understand the strategy that has nations enter into massive debt when it seems it could easily be avoided if those nations would simply choose to issue M0 for themselves.<br/>
<br/>
But since the question "Why do our nations borrow" is probably too vast, I simplified to "What is the Origin of our <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y Supply"?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-16-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
Subject: Who Issues the <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y that National Governments then Borrow?<br/>
<br/>
Anyone <a href="know.htm">know</a> any of the privileged few humans with authority to Issue <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y out of thin air?<br/>
<br/>
This has got to be the best <a href="job.htm">job</a> on earth!<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Those issuers often buy bonds <a href="back.htm">back</a>ed by "Federal <a href="land.htm">Land</a>" within each nation - so whenever a nation defaults on it's "National Debt", those issuers become the <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of that country!<br/>
<br/>
This is a much easier way to conquer than going to war. Just trick the is<a href="land.htm">land</a> next to you into NOT issuing their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y, then get them into debt by issuing <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y <a href="back.htm">back</a>ed by nothing which you then borrow to them! Genius!<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="note.htm">Note</a>, this '<a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y' is not the physical coins or paper <a href="note.htm">note</a>s, but simply declarations of value = 'fiat' made by ... WHO? *Who* is declaring this value, and *why* do national governments borrowing it from these people instead of issuing it for the people that comprise that nation?<br/>
<br/>
There is never any reason for any government or group <small>(at the <a href="stat.htm">Stat</a>e, County, City, even Community level)</small> to be in debt, because they could always just issue <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y for themselves, but the won't. Weird.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-15-2010:</span> Some Utah Food CoOps: <a class="ext" href="http://FoodCo-Op.net">FoodCo-Op.net</a>, <a class="ext" href="http://BountifulBaskets.org">BountifulBaskets.org</a>, <a class="ext" href="http://Click-2-Pick.com">Click-2-Pick.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-15-2010:</span> Last Saturday I watched <a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=07REkvATHb8">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=07REkvATHb8</a> <span class="quot2">>>Jordan Maxwell - The Dawn of a <a href="new.htm">New</a> Day <small>(2009)</small></span><br/>
<br/>
He is likely wrong about some things, but I enjoy his original research and his attempts at weaving a holistic view of our past against the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent situation.<br/>
<br/>
In this <a href="work.htm">work</a> he claims the Communist <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a of the "<a href="work.htm">Work</a>ing-Class rising against the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ing-Class" has been standardized as iconographic depiction of the SUN rising - usually from behind <a href="mount.htm">mount</a>ains and/or in variations of the phrase "<a href="new.htm">New</a> Day Dawning".<br/>
<br/>
The phrase has most recently been <a href="use.htm">use</a>d by both Obama and Hillary Clinton in their <a href="cam.htm">cam</a>paigns which also include obvious SUN symbology.<br/>
<br/>
Later that day while at the local <a href="use.htm">use</a>d-goods <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e I was looking through the VHS movies and noticed a <a href="new.htm">new</a>er version of "Animal Farm" <small>( <a class="ext" href="http://IMDB.com/title/tt0204824">IMDB.com/title/tt0204824</a> )</small>. One aspect of this <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>y is the Animals depicting the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ing-Class rise against the Farmer representing the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ing-Class.<br/>
<br/>
To my great surprise, the front of the sleeve on the movie reads: "There's a <a href="new.htm">NEW</a> DAY DAWNING on the farm."<br/>
<br/>
What does this mean? Why and how does such a phrase appear so often? Who is in control of such choices?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-14-2010:</span> Joined <a class="ext" href="http://AbundanceLeague.org">AbundanceLeague.org</a><br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-14-2010:</span> Joined <a class="ext" href="http://WiserEarth.org">WiserEarth.org</a><br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-14-2010:</span> Joined <a class="ext" href="http://SocialStartupLabs.org">SocialStartupLabs.org</a><br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-14-2010:</span> Joined <a class="ext" href="http://ShareWiki.org">ShareWiki.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-13-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
<br/>
Ryan Lanham wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="real.htm">Real</a> income must come from someone consuming.</span><br/>
<br/>
I guess you mean "predatory income".<br/>
<br/>
<a href="real.htm">Real</a>, actual income is <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t, not <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
A lone is<a href="land.htm">land</a>er cannot increase value by consuming.<br/>
<br/>
It is just the opposite. Consuming a coconut is a *decrease* in total value.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
We will never be able to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sense of our world while using this sort of upside-down thinking.<br/>
<br/>
We must <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a full r<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>sideration of the goals of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. We must move away from the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is for the purpose of preying upon those that do not yet have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of those outputs.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
To believe <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> must be perpetuated is to also believe Poverty is a requirement that must never be resolved - for <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> requires Scarcity and Scarcity is the foundation of Poverty.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-13-2010:</span> What are the basic features of Citizen <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership?<br/>
<br/>
Let's consider the overly-simple case of 1 person:<br/>
<br/>
What is the meaning concepts such as <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>, <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, <a href="insur.htm">Insur</a>ance, <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-12-2010:</span> Posted to a private list<br/>
<br/>
Stephen Hinton <small>(of <a class="ext" href="http://Eco-Unit.AVBP.net">Eco-Unit.AVBP.net</a>)</small> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I am having a bit of trouble getting into the P2P stuff it seems I don't</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> have enough branches to hang the insight onto. Maybe a chat would help...</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
I'm trying to simplify my approach, but for now will give feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> to the "<a href="key.htm">KEY</a> COMPONENTS" list at <a class="ext" href="http://Eco-Unit.AVBP.net">http://Eco-Unit.AVBP.net</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> A group, committed though <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership or contract, that shares re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e food, water, accommodation and in some cases <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
This is also what I envision.<br/>
<br/>
I believe the contract must enforce at least the following: "<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is treated as an Investment from the Consumer who paid it."<br/>
<br/>
I <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ine Consumers pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts such as housing, organic foods, etc. This <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y will be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to buy the <a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Tools to begin and those Consumers will be the <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers of those Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> A settlement where farming, <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>ing, recycling and energy <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion are contained in one geographic location<br/>
<br/>
Yes, that sounds good.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <a href="liv.htm">Liv</a>ing accommodation that is a long term investment<br/>
<br/>
When I <a href="use.htm">use</a> the word 'Investment' I am talking about taking risk and <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing for the purpose of receiving "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t. The approach I take cannot treat <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 because it must instead be treated as an Investment from the Consumer who paid it.<br/>
<br/>
See <a class="ext" href="http://patware.FreeShell.org/faq.htm">http://patware.FreeShell.org/faq.htm</a> for a fairly good overview.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<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/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-12-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
<br/>
Daniel Araya wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> 1. I believe <a href="free.htm">free</a> market capitalism has largely proved the happiest time for</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> humans by far.</span><br/>
<br/>
Would you say Capitalism is perfect?<br/>
<br/>
If not, what would you say is wrong with it, and how are those problems held in place?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> 2. I believe in governments regulating markets.</span><br/>
<br/>
This proves the system is unable to achieve it's <a href="own.htm">own</a> goals.<br/>
<br/>
It's like a strange kernel <small>[of a <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter <a href="operating system.htm">Operating System</a>]</small> that cannot schedule and allocate re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es without being watched and adjusted by a group of 'representative' processes.<br/>
<br/>
This is a very dangerous approach because of how our mistreatment of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> concentrates wealth <small>(and therefore re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es)</small> into the hands of a few otherwise 'normal' processes and how that wealth is then <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to further influence the kernel by hiring lobbyists to influence the 'representative' processes and even writing legislation <small>(kernel-level code)</small> that permanently changes the system in their favor.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> 5. Technology has made labour and learning problematic.</span><br/>
<br/>
By 'problematic' do you mean 'easier'?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> 6. Because of 5, the cr<a href="edit.htm">edit</a>/debt <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy of the world is now broken.</span><br/>
<br/>
Would you say humans cannot be happy unless they are in debt?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<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">Jul-08-2010:</span> <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ing on a better <a href="title.htm">title</a> and description of Citizen <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-08-2010:</span> Posted to <a href="cloud.htm">Cloud</a>-<a href="compu.htm">Compu</a>ting-<a href="use.htm">Use</a>-Cases@<a class="ext" href="http://GoogleGroups.com">GoogleGroups.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Tom Hanan wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Again there is very little motivation on the <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the established service</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> providers to transition to a <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el that will eventually also do away with</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> contractual lock in clauses and <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>ments. These revenue preserving clauses</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> / <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>ments are the <a href="back.htm">back</a>bone of most service providers large and small.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Yes, *except* in the special case of "<a href="user own.htm">User Own</a>ed" <a href="cloud.htm">cloud</a>s. <small>(also <a href="know.htm">know</a>n as "Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed", "Customer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed" and "<a href="payer own.htm">Payer Own</a>ed")</small>.<br/>
<br/>
When a group of <a href="user.htm">User</a>s invest for their <a href="own.htm">own</a> purposes to collectively <a href="own.htm">own</a> a <a href="cloud.htm">cloud</a>, then there is no conflict between vendor and customer, for they are one and the same!<br/>
<br/>
There is also no drive to preserve revenue - in fact there is no such thing as revenue because the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> only for the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of service <small>(including wages of course)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
The only conflicts that occur are between the entire group itself and individuals <small>(or subgroups)</small> within the group.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<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">Jul-07-2010:</span> Posted to <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>owmix<br/>
<br/>
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> what happens if we set up in such a <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el, an algorithm</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> where <a href="user.htm">user</a>s become "altruists", and may for example "choose</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to give up their priority" ?</span><br/>
<br/>
Priority is created when the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion are "available to" <small>(or you might say "the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of")</small> only a subset of those who <a href="use.htm">use</a> the outputs <small>(<a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ectives)</small> of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
Under those conditions the <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e of access can be held above the true <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of that access. That <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is, of course, <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> ceases to exist when all <a href="user.htm">user</a>s have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of the <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ectives they seek.<br/>
<br/>
For example, if every <a href="user.htm">user</a> who wanted to eat Salmon had enough <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water rights, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings and tools needed to create more Salmon, then each of those <a href="user.htm">user</a>s would have to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion - including any wages for <a href="work.htm">work</a> they did not do themselves - but would not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> because they would not *buy* cleaned and <a href="pack.htm">pack</a>aged Salmon at the end of the season, but would <a href="own.htm">own</a> it already as a "side effect" of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of that <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ective.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> And when applied to "<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty" definitions, how to prevent</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> giving up of <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty in a system/algorithm, of being taken</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> over by a non altruistic <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty meme ?</span><br/>
<br/>
My sort of "brute force" approach to this problem is to treat all <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small> as though it were an investment from the Consumer who paid it. You might also think of it as a sort of pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment that was somewhat coerced from the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er as a result of his lacking <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Is this what is done through a <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> license ?</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, this occurs when the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> requires the provider <small>(who has priority over the receiver)</small> allow that receiver at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a> access to the <a href="virt.htm">Virt</a>ual <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es whenever he allows access to the finished <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ective <small>(the binary <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect <a href="file.htm">file</a>s)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> But how to apply it to scarce re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es ? How to handle con<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency issues</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> in altruistic <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>es of <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty ?</span><br/>
<br/>
One way is to create a legally binding "Social Contract" that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers may may apply to Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ing that all <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> must be treated as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er investment. Such an enterprise should also be able to qualify as "non-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>" since non-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s already charge <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> but then try to hide those <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s by overpaying high-ranking officials and generally growing the business while retaining <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of that growth for themselves - which only further increases their priority.<br/>
<br/>
Another example where Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es are being <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ed may help clarify why this negative-feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop is so effective.<br/>
<br/>
Let's say two or more <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are interested in using the 'common' roto-tiller.<br/>
<br/>
They both arrive at the <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age area at noon expecting to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine.<br/>
<br/>
They understand that *some* <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> must be paid for all of the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of initial investment, re<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ing maintenance, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age, security, <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance, etc. These are all true <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s, and so there is no 'priority' yet being displayed.<br/>
<br/>
But since there is a scheduling conflict, we need a way to resolve who should receive priority.<br/>
<br/>
If we arrange for the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine to enter auction whenever there is a conflict, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s may bid against each other causing them to voluntarily raise the <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> and create the value called '<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>'.<br/>
<br/>
If one of the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s does not want to bid, but is willing to instead wait for the other <a href="user.htm">user</a>, then he voluntarily gives-up priority because he decides immediate access is not "worth it".<br/>
<br/>
But if the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s decide that is not OK, then the bidding begins which *proves* the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(the number of roto-tillers)</small> is insufficient to meet "peak demand".<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="user.htm">user</a> who wins the auction will <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> which becomes his investment toward the purchase of yet more Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(another roto-tiller)</small> which means growth is caused 'naturally' by insufficient supply.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I guess this leads to individual choices. Emergent governance through</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> individual choices for contributions ?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> But how to enable individual choices in a way as to avoid deadlocks in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> inter-dependent systems ?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> What if one <small>( or more )</small> "altruistic" agent faces a dilemma as to where to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> allocate re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es in a situation where this situation can create <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> types of deadlocks ?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Can an agent communicate about it to other agents, can they have a view of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> it,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> can they resolve deadlocks related to interdependency through creating novel</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> solutions ?</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I think you are talking about the 'divisibility' of Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es and rights of secession.<br/>
<br/>
My vision of how to handle this would be to always allow any sub-group to break from the larger group when they have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in any "<a href="real.htm">real</a>istically divisible portion".<br/>
<br/>
For example, <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jul-07-2010:</span> Posted to private list<br/>
<br/>
mrc wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> thomas ... wants the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er decide</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> what he thinks is public or not..</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and i want the <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom on the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> in the author aswell having the last</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> say in authorizing couse</span><br/>
<br/>
Are you saying <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers should have no say?<br/>
<br/>
Who do you mean by 'author'?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> BUT e<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ing an <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>al universal way of sharing</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> which he commits to reach at some point..</span><br/>
<br/>
Sorry, but could you maybe rewrite this, I'm not understanding what you mean.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> there has to be something to lose for the people who say is public and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> then just share it with his close friends.</span><br/>
<br/>
Hmm... I guess my view is more similar to how authors of Copyrightable materials choose a license.<br/>
<br/>
Just because I apply the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> to a <a href="work.htm">work</a> doesn't mean I must announce or advertise that it exists. I can share it only with my friends if I so choose.<br/>
<br/>
What I cannot do is stop them from using, <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ifiying, copying or sharing *their copy* with others.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> My vision is that any group of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers applying this "Social Contract"</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> is fully independent of any other group except for how the Contract</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> may 'connect' them.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the using of the commons associated/restricted to a group of friends or</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> whatever not universal doesnt interest me much</span><br/>
<br/>
It may not be of interest to you, but it is still valuable to those small groups. Sharing is valuable even when it doesn't simultaneously involve all 7 billion humans.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="real.htm">Real</a> limitations of <a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e and time means I can only share a roto-tiller among a limited number of people.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> This is how the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> <a href="work.htm">work</a>s with software, and I think it can also</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> <a href="work.htm">work</a> with <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware. Just because a group <small>(or single person)</small> puts</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> software under the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> doesn't mean he is required to distribute</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> it to you or to anyone at all.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> This may seem unimportant, but is actually a very <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> license because it allows developers to charge <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y for the software.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a> was doing exactly this with the original <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> which he wrote for his <a href="work.htm">work</a> on the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="emacs.htm">Emacs</a> text <a href="edit.htm">edit</a>or. He was</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> charging ... I think it was $300 per tape ... for copies he would</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> snail-<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> to <a href="user.htm">user</a>s of that <a href="edit.htm">edit</a>or.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> umm.. he is required to give you the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>,</span><br/>