-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
diary-jan-2010.htm
864 lines (861 loc) · 63.4 KB
/
diary-jan-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
<?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-jan-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/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-30-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Subject: <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom and the Purpose of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
Alex Rollin wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> At some point I might "break even" as a vested <a href="part.htm">part</a>ner, which might mean I</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> could purchase burgers at the $3.75 rate</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership has a surprising effect on <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
When the consumer of an <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, then he must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of that operation.<br/>
<br/>
For example, if you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a <a href="back.htm">back</a>hoe, then you must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s to<br/>
operate and maintain and <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine. You must grease it, add<br/>
oil and diesel, check the water, etc.<br/>
<br/>
If you hire people to do those <a href="job.htm">job</a>s, then you will need to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> those<br/>
wages <small>(as a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
You must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all of the same <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s as any other <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, but the one<br/>
thing you don't <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> is <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> - for who would you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to?<br/>
<br/>
So <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> = 0 when the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es is the consumer of those<br/>
<a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives because there is nobody else to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I'm not sure that I understand the overall utility of ever 'lowering' the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e to 3.75 since this points at some kind of 'stable' system,</span><br/>
<br/>
A strange feature of <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect <a href="user.htm">user</a>s being <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers is that <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e<br/>
approaches <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> on it's <a href="own.htm">own</a>!<br/>
<br/>
I'm not suggesting we lower <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificially. We should charge<br/>
just a little less than the "going rate" in the area.<br/>
<br/>
But we won't be able to stop <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> from approaching zero for any <a href="user.htm">user</a><br/>
gaining <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es - because the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es is also<br/>
the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects even before they are even <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed!<br/>
<br/>
For example: One <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ective of a <a href="back.htm">back</a>hoe is to create big holes in the<br/>
ground. When you, as <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e-<a href="own.htm">own</a>er, <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for that <a href="back.htm">back</a>hoe to be<br/>
operated, you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> only the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s. Nobody is lowering the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e for<br/>
that <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ective; <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e==<a href="cost.htm">cost</a> as a *side effect* of your <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in<br/>
the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
If you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a cow, then you don't buy the milk from yourself, you only<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
If you <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> some cows, you don't buy the milk from yourselves, you<br/>
only <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
If you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a dairy with 999 other people, then you must each <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> your<br/>
portion of the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, but you wouldn't need to buy the milk from your<br/>
collective 'self', but would each already <a href="own.htm">own</a> the same % of milk as<br/>
you <a href="own.htm">own</a> cattle.<br/>
<br/>
You could also eventually also have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in equipment to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e<br/>
butter, ice cream, cheese, etc. - and would then <a href="own.htm">own</a> those <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives<br/>
"at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" as well.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> To go further, which <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, how deep into the supply chain, and for how</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> long <small>(1 year or perpeuity)</small> are the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es secured?</span><br/>
<br/>
You, as the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, should ultimately gain <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership in<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>all* of the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for as deep as those chains run.<br/>
<br/>
You, as the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, should have the option to sell<br/>
immediately or to keep <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership for any length of time.<br/>
<br/>
Under the Terms of Operation outlined, if you sell or <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e any<br/>
<a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed by those <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, then you would be<br/>
required to treat all <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> charged against that purchaser<br/>
as their investment in more <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
A significant side-effect of treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> in this manner is that<br/>
<a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants will tend to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for only about as much as they need for<br/>
themselves and so there will not be much of a problem with<br/>
overaccumulation.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-29-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Subject:Repurposing <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> for <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom<br/>
Ryan Lanham wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Patrick Anderson wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> <a href="co-own.htm">Co-Own</a>ership is one way to hold physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> There are already large numbers of ways to do this.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Foundations, co-ops, governments, trusts, etc.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
I'm afraid they are all wrong in their <a href="own.htm">own</a> ways.<br/>
<br/>
More from ignorance than maliciousness, ALL of our attempts to<br/>
organize have failed to provide even our *basic* necessities.<br/>
<br/>
How could so many people be homeless and hungry when there is far, far<br/>
more than enough <a href="land.htm">land</a> and water needed to do so?<br/>
<br/>
If our planet was much smaller <small>(or think of an is<a href="land.htm">land</a>)</small>, and if there<br/>
<a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ortionally fewer humans, would more than half of the inhabitants<br/>
be without clean water, food and shelter?<br/>
<br/>
Would we, as is<a href="land.htm">land</a>ers, also construct famine <small>(as the US Farm Bill<br/>
does)</small> by <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing each other to NOT grow food - so that <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es are kept<br/>
above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>?<br/>
<br/>
We are *terrible* at organization.<br/>
<br/>
Once a person or group decides to organize, they immediately take a<br/>
stance against all the people who will <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the growth of that<br/>
entity in the future.<br/>
<br/>
Those who organize don't understand what <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> measures, and so treat<br/>
it as some sort of reward - as though they should celebrate the<br/>
depravity and dependence that is the basis and only reason a consumer<br/>
would <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
We, as a species, should be 'setup' by now.<br/>
<br/>
Sure there is still <a href="work.htm">work</a> to do, but why are most of us <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing almost<br/>
non-stop for just the absolute bare essentials?<br/>
<br/>
Why do we <a href="work.htm">work</a> our entire <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>es and *still* not even <a href="own.htm">own</a> a house?<br/>
<br/>
We must organize for the benefit of those willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the <a href="real.htm">real</a><br/>
<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and for those who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the expansion of that<br/>
entity. That is the consumer in both cases.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> If the argument is against <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as reward, you will lose.</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm not petitioning a government. I don't have enough Federal Reserve<br/>
<a href="note.htm">Note</a>s to purchase such legislation.<br/>
<br/>
We don't need to beg the actors in the theatre called 'government'.<br/>
They won't and even *can't* help us because for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> corporations<br/>
are the only ones <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently getting anything done!<br/>
<br/>
We can solve this by organizing for ourselves. We could do this as a<br/>
Corporation, but that isn't strictly necessary.<br/>
<br/>
That organization must be operated under a special Terms of Operation<br/>
that designates the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a> treatment of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's<br/>
investment. That organization will then grow and cause Capitalist to<br/>
become unimportant.<br/>
<br/>
Such an organization is certain to outcompete all others since it will<br/>
not be required to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s as consumers are<br/>
paid in <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, not <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
We should probably allow <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es to float close to what the "market<br/>
will bear", but only for the purpose of helping those latecoming<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers to gain <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership in the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es needed for that<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
As <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es approach <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, our organization will not fail or even be<br/>
concerned, since that only indicates that those <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants are<br/>
gaining sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion as they<br/>
should.<br/>
<br/>
We can easily endure a lack of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> should be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d for<br/>
growth, and when that growth is <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by those who need the outputs<br/>
thereof, then <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is naturally reduced.<br/>
<br/>
When <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> reaches zero, it will be time for celebration, not for<br/>
tears, for it is one of our goals that <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es should meet <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s so<br/>
that everyone can enjoy the things they need without <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing tribute to<br/>
other <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> What is needed is more technology</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> evolving faster and faster.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership then becomes moot.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes I <a href="know.htm">know</a> many people dream of the day when robots will do all of the <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
But most people will not be able to afford those <a href="new.htm">new</a> technologies anyway.<br/>
<br/>
We need a better <a href="operating system.htm">Operating System</a>, not more <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-28-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
<br/>
Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I would like to be able to buy one apple of a certain variety,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to see if I like it, without having to buy into the farm.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es are not set <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificially within this system, they are set by "the market" just the same as in Capitalism.<br/>
<br/>
There are some very good reasons to do this:<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> Growth can only occur if more value is collected that the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of operation. If we do not collect <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, then we will never have any extra <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s needed to include more people under our <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ion.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> will be collected by *someone*, so it may as well be *us*, for then we can treat it 'correctly'. If we do not collect <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> <small>(if we sell all <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>")</small>, then some customers will buy-up all of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t <small>(say apples)</small>, and then re-sell them closer to the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent market <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
So when you buy such an apple, you will most likely <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, just as you do when you buy from a grocery <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
You will receive a paper or electronic receipt at the point-of-sale that shows the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> you overpaid.<br/>
<br/>
This is also a legal <a href="title.htm">title</a> to your portion of that <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty. It may be more accurate to call it a bond, since the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers have not yet even purchased that <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
You could leave the receipt on the table, but since you already paid <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, you have already bought into the farm.<br/>
<br/>
These receipts can be <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ed, and so are valuable even if you decide you don't like <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect you bought.<br/>
<br/>
More completely, each of these receipts can also act one-half of an '<a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ing' <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency. The other half of the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency is filled when <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers <a href="promis.htm">promis</a>e to perform future labor within some window of time against those physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
When both halves of such a <a href="note.htm">note</a> are 'filled' - when you have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in apple trees, all supporting physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, and have commitments from <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed in taking care of those trees, harvesting the fruit, and preserving and <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ing, etc. - then you are literally <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ed <small>(imperfectly)</small> against going without that specific <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ective.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-28-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Subject: <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom and the Purpose of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I am not sure what "the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es" means, concretely.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Suppose the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is wheat.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Does this mean that the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s become <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the farm?</span><br/>
<br/>
Within such a system, pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment - whether as initial <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing or as <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> paid - would be invested in *more* physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es that are not yet operational.<br/>
<br/>
For example: Let's say you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> $5 for a hamburger from such an institution, but it only <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers $3.75 <small>(including all wages)</small> to deliver it to you <small>(and clean up after you, etc.)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e you paid and the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion was $1.25.<br/>
<br/>
That $1.25 is pooled with the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> by the many other customers.<br/>
<br/>
When there is enough <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s to act, the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers purchase *more* physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es with that revenue.<br/>
<br/>
But the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of each of those investments is retained by the original <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er.<br/>
<br/>
Your overpayment becomes your automatic investment in beef cattle, fields of alfalfa, tomatoes, potatoes, corn, chickens, etc. and all the <a href="land.htm">land</a> and water rights and tools and any other supporting <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er becomes <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>er in farms and factories, but would only become <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>er in some of the *<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent* physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es if there happen to be some up for sale, and that group of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers were accepting you as <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>er.<br/>
<br/>
Otherwise, and more often, your investment would be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to grow the size of the organization by purchasing even more physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
He who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> slowly becomes <a href="own.htm">own</a>er,<br/>
He who <a href="own.htm">own</a>s enough no longer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is invested by the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, but the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er would retain full <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of those 'shares'.<br/>
<br/>
These investments then 'vest' as their literal <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tiveness comes online.<br/>
<br/>
There seems to be a need for the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers to have some control over that investment, but that control must taper toward 0... or actually it should taper toward their % of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in any <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e. A crude solution might be a time period where the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er is inhibited from immediately "cashing out".<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Does this mean a <a href="new.htm">new</a> customer has to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more than old customers, in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> order to buy from them a share of the farm?</span><br/>
<br/>
The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is not between 'old' and '<a href="new.htm">new</a>', but between '<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing' and 'non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing'.<br/>
<br/>
As a <a href="new.htm">new</a>, non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er, you have little choice but to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the $5.<br/>
<br/>
But as you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> your percentage into the system <small>(as you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small>, you accrue <a href="real.htm">real</a>, tangible, material, <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive, generative assets that are under your full dominion <small>(within limitations of <a href="real.htm">real</a>istic divisibility with other possible restrictions ...)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
When you <a href="own.htm">own</a> an apple tree, you must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of labor, tools, water, etc. but you do not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, for you <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects already.<br/>
<br/>
When you <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> an apple tree orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> with some other people, then you must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the same things, and you <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects already, but it is easier to do with others helping.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I think it is easier to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e this <a href="work.htm">work</a> for small <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> activities, which might have thousands of <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> customers, than</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> for large ones with millions of customers.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, small is better for some things, such as agriculture and many types of simple manufacturing. It also brings pollution <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s local, which I think is a good feed<a href="back.htm">back</a>.<br/>
<br/>
But we could also pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> into a phone and internet system that could deliver service *at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>* to billions.<br/>
<br/>
We could send audio, video, even terabytes of data from our wrist-phone while only <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for the *<a href="real.htm">real</a>* <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
How much do you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> to operate the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> within your home?<br/>
<br/>
When a <a href="user own.htm">user own</a>s the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es he only <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of initial investment, <a href="real.htm">real</a> wear and tear, the energy and <a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e consumed and any needed labor.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Perhaps the biggest problem with investment today is when it goes into</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> large companies. Perhaps if we could arrange a way to discourage</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> large companies, it would eliminate the problems of investment today</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> with a smaller restructuring of society.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, corporations are homicidal megaliths because treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as <a href="own.htm">own</a>er reward is a positive-feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop incenting even more <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
But since <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> measures consumer dependence, and since scarcity increases consumer dependence, Corporations tend to withhold, restrict, disable, destroy.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>..<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er investment is a negative-feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop that allows growth to occur, but tapers off <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s approach zero)</small> as consumers gains sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in all the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
We can form <a href="new.htm">new</a> corporations under a special Terms of Operation that enforce this constraint, and any other rules we find may be needed to ensure <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom.<br/>
<br/>
Here is my shot at this:<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://patware.freeshell.org/general%20public%20law.htm">http://patware.freeshell.org/general%20public%20law.htm</a><br/>
<br/>
Here is an earlier attempt that is more complete in some ways:<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://patware.freeshell.org/gplv4%20draft%201.htm">http://patware.freeshell.org/gplv4%20draft%201.htm</a><br/>
<br/>
These should also help understand the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a:<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://p2pfoundation.net/User_Owned">http://p2pfoundation.net/User_Owned</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://patware.freeshell.org/thesis.htm">http://patware.freeshell.org/thesis.htm</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-26-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://LibCom.org/library/Simultaneous-valuation-exploitation-theory-marxist-humanism">LibCom.org/library/Simultaneous-valuation-exploitation-theory-marxist-humanism</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-26-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
<br/>
Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a> wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Patrick Anderson wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> We can organize <a href="user.htm">user</a>s this way to "pre <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>" for the goods and services</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> they need, but in this case they, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s become full <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> of the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I am not sure what "the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es" means, concretely.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Suppose the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is wheat. Does this mean that the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s become</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the farm? There might be a way to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e that <a href="work.htm">work</a>,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> but it will take thought.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Or do you mean some other thing?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Patrick Anderson wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> But any <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a> that does not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership will</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> be <a href="left.htm">left</a> to the mercy of those <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers... we must treat</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> that overpayment <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> as though that <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a> were <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing an</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> investment.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Does this mean a <a href="new.htm">new</a> customer has to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more than old customers, in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> order to buy from them a share of the farm?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Perhaps the biggest problem with investment today is when it goes into</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> large companies. Perhaps if we could arrange a way to discourage</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> large companies, it would eliminate the problems of investment today</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> with a smaller restructuring of society.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Kevin Carson wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Entrepreneurial <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> entirely healthy, because it's a strong motivator to be first to</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> market with <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful innovations; but it's entirely healthy, because</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> there are no <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty rights or other <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> scarcity to prevent the <a href="free.htm">free</a> <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>usion of the innovation or to prevent</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> the market from driving <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e down to <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> as fast as competitors</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> adopt the innovation.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I am not convinced of this, because I pose the question: how do we</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> prevent successful companies from influencing politicians to give them</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> advantages and "<a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ion" so that they remain on top? Perhaps only</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> by preventing large companies from existing can we prevent them from</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> undermining the system through their large political influence.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Could society <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e more or less what it <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>es now without any</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> large companies? I am not sure, but I think it would be good to try.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-25-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
<br/>
Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> It is not necessarily a good thing for people to invest. The first</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> question is, what sort of investments <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e the world better, and which</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it worse?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="trad.htm">Trad</a>itional inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are paid the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between what the end-<a href="user.htm">user</a> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s, and the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> in this way incents the extremely dangerous behavior we see corporations exhibit as they try to destroy all competitors and even limit the functionality of their <a href="own.htm">own</a> devices to increase scarcity - for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> *requires* scarcity, and cannot withstand abundance.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
A better kind of inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a> is paid in <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t when he, as a future end-<a href="user.htm">user</a>, invests for the purpose of "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
We can organize <a href="user.htm">user</a>s this way to "pre <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>" for the goods and services they need, but in this case they, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s become full <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
One strange side-effect of <a href="user.htm">user</a>s being the full <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es required for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion they need is that they no longer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>!<br/>
<br/>
But any <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a> that does not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership will be <a href="left.htm">left</a> to the mercy of those <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
So, in order to perpetuate the <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom that comes from <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es your body requires, we must treat that overpayment <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> as though that <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a> were <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing an investment.<br/>
<br/>
We will handle <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> as the plea for growth that it is - and so invest it *for* the one who paid it, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>.<br/>
<br/>
By doing so, we turn <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> against excessive accumulation for the few, and toward sufficient accumulation for the each.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<a href="social sufficiency coalition.htm">Social Sufficiency Coalition</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com">http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-25-2010:</span> Posted to OpenKollab@<a class="ext" href="http://GoogleGroups.com">GoogleGroups.com</a><br/>
<br/>
Jim Benson wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> HARTZOG'S LAW, BABY!</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> As a complex systems scholar I maintain that social systems will</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> always evolve to the edge of chaos that their technological</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> infrastructure will support. - Paul B Hartzog</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
You seem to imply a "supported chaos" would be most <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive or best.<br/>
<br/>
I like the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a. It reminds me of "Carnival as Resistance".<br/>
<br/>
So maybe we can increase <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom by increasing entropy in some controlled manner?<br/>
<br/>
This <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es alot of sense to me.<br/>
<br/>
My <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>e of a better "we" would allow anyone who 'qualifies' <small>(one form of constraint to contain the chaos)</small> would have the option of running the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine for themselves or even hiring that <a href="work.htm">work</a> <small>(hopefully play)</small> out to someone else.<br/>
<br/>
I envision the controls being enforced through a sort of <a href="fract.htm">fract</a>ional <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership contract or "Terms of Operation" applied to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed material assets.<br/>
<br/>
A <a href="part.htm">part</a> of this extended discussion would be addressing our need to schedule and allocate access to the physical <a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e and those physical tools we hold in common.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Patrick<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/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-19-2010:</span> Unsent post to OpenManufacturing@<a class="ext" href="http://GoogleGroups.com">GoogleGroups.com</a><br/>
<br/>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Christian Siefkes <christian@<a class="ext" href="http://siefkes.net">siefkes.net</a>> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> How does this translate to <a href="free.htm">free</a> <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> where there is no "buying" at all?</span><br/>
<br/>
Are you sure "<a href="free.htm">free</a> <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware" must be <a href="free.htm">free</a>-as-in-beer <small>(0 <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> to end-<a href="user.htm">user</a>)</small>?<br/>
<br/>
That is not even true for "<a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software".<br/>
Everything has a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, including apt-get.<br/>
<br/>
It may be hidden from us, but somebody is <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <small>(Shuttleworth)</small>, and that doesn't even consider the <a href="ecol.htm">ecol</a>ogic impact caused by the creation, operation and disposal of those <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ters <small>[ <a class="ext" href="http://BAN.org">http://BAN.org</a> ]</small>.<br/>
<br/>
If we are to bring <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom to the physical world, we can no longer ignore the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>iculty of <a href="recover.htm">recover</a>ing <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
Allowing <a href="user.htm">user</a>s to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es they consume<br/>
Will give us the value we need to begin and continue.<br/>
<br/>
If nobody <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s <small>(whether with <a href="work.htm">work</a> or with play)</small><br/>
Then how will be organize in this other way?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Our <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y has many problems, so I see why it is shunned,<br/>
But I'm talking more access, scheduling and allocation.<br/>
<br/>
How will we share a tiller if there is no fee collected?<br/>
How will we repair it and what about the oil and gases?<br/>
<br/>
It seems to me there should be a fee<br/>
to be paid by those who cause excluding.<br/>
<br/>
For I cannot <a href="use.htm">use</a> the tiller when you are already are.<br/>
We can share it across time but the rivalry is <a href="real.htm">real</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-19-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Subject: Repurposing <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> for <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom<br/>
<br/>
Samuel Rose wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> One problem in the <a href="real.htm">real</a> world is that of trust. How do project</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants <a href="know.htm">know</a> they are not pre-purchasing "vaporware"?</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Yes, this is a problem for any small organization...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
We *should* control the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of our needs -<br/>
the <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water, organisms, tools and <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age.<br/>
<br/>
But we leave it up to Capitalists who hold it against us.<br/>
They keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> and <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es locked shut.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
One way to control is to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> it ourselves.<br/>
We can invest for ourselves by buying the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Once we <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, even without those <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s,<br/>
we will have full control and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> much lower bills.<br/>
<br/>
You don't <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> for fruit when you <a href="own.htm">own</a> the tree.<br/>
You must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, but <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects already.<br/>
<br/>
We can add <a href="new.htm">new</a> conditions to any <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty we <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>.<br/>
We can prevent <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects being separated from <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
One way to lock-open the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es we need in our plight.<br/>
is to <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty rights as the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> <a href="use.htm">use</a>s Copyright.<br/>
<br/>
We'll become <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, but then tie our <a href="own.htm">own</a> hands.<br/>
By treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing mechanism.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
Personal <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is important.<br/>
We each need some privacy.<br/>
<br/>
But <a href="co-own.htm">Co-Own</a>ership is important too.<br/>
Let's share fields and factories.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="co-own.htm">Co-Own</a>ership is one way to hold physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
Access to these is required to control our <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="co-own.htm">Co-Own</a>ership is complicated but it's not impossible.<br/>
It is what the Capitalists are doing against us already!<br/>
<br/>
But they do it wrong when they treat <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as reward.<br/>
Because this incents scarcity, destruction, even war.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects too.<br/>
He is in control in a way that is good.<br/>
<br/>
But that goodness turns sour when he <a href="use.htm">use</a>s that control<br/>
to stop <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a>s from gaining <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>.<br/>
<br/>
It is not clear he stops <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom when our usual stance,<br/>
is that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is reward for those who were there first.<br/>
<br/>
But <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> measures consumer dependence and scarcity.<br/>
It is the inverse of competition, it measures monopoly.<br/>
<br/>
Monopoly is not perfect, but neither is competition,<br/>
until each consumer's <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is sufficient.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="curr.htm">Curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers have an upper-hand because they organized.<br/>
This is good to a degree, but they take it too far.<br/>
<br/>
It important each person have sufficient <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty -<br/>
both private and public - to fulfill basic needs.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
So organizing can be good, because we can then share <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s.<br/>
But it is also dangerous because we do not <a href="know.htm">know</a> how to scale.<br/>
<br/>
As Capitalism grows, control is concentrated.<br/>
Consumers <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for growth, but are not compensated.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>ing <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> is a plea for control.<br/>
We can <a href="use.htm">use</a> that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment to increase our girth.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> our expansion<br/>
As he accepts <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership under our demands.<br/>
<br/>
These demands are a Terms of Operation<br/>
Meant to keep <a href="user.htm">User</a>s <a href="free.htm">free</a> of subjugation.<br/>
<br/>
By treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> paid as investment made,<br/>
Each and every <a href="user.htm">user</a> is incrementally <a href="free.htm">free</a>d.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is a sort of coerced pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment.<br/>
Made by those with insufficient <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is needed to <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> grow.<br/>
But we must remember who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
A <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er becomes inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a> when he <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s more than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
But that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to reward those already in charge.<br/>
<br/>
So the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er gains nothing, even though he in need.<br/>
While the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers accumulates more through ignorant greed.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> in Capitalism doesn't become the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of those <a href="new.htm">new</a> Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es he <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed, but is instead <a href="left.htm">left</a> in the cold as though his contribution meant nothing!<br/>
<br/>
In a better society, you will slowly gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
in <a href="real.htm">real</a> Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es whenever you overpay.<br/>
<br/>
We will each <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> enough surface area, water rights, grain seed,<br/>
kitchen <small>(restaurant)</small>, grinders, mixers, kneaders, ovens, knives,<br/>
<br/>
Until you will eventually not buy bread,<br/>
for, as <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er, you <a href="own.htm">own</a> it already!<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Samuel Rose wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> In the case of what I am talking about, if all of these people pool</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and pre-purchase materials, while sharing the IP, there is <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> nothing for them to "<a href="own.htm">own</a>" <small>(there is no company or entity which they</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> are buying into)</small>.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I am talking exclusively about material assets - what I call Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es such as <a href="land.htm">land</a>, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, water-rights, <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ters, plants, animals, tools, etc.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> treat that overpayment as though the consumer were</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing a tiny investment - so he slowly gains <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion for the purpose of solidifying his ability to receive</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" while also helping him gain the control he needs to</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> finally be able to claim "<a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom" in the physical <a href="real.htm">real</a>m.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I suppose that in your <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el, the material suppliers would have to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> to sell <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in their companies with every purchase</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> by open manufacturing project <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants, etc.</span><br/>
<br/>
No, they would only sell what they might want to get rid of.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> paid by consumers wouldn't buy-up the *<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent* assets <small>(unless for sale)</small>, but would be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e *<a href="new.htm">new</a>* investments - such as opening another restaurant or buying another roto-tiller or another <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter, etc.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> But since those</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> supplier companies likely won't do it, and there may be no other</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful supplier, I don't see how to fully exercise your <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el in the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="real.htm">real</a> world in the context of open manufacturing. Maybe you can help me</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> understand?</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
No, the supplier is not required to sell any <a href="part.htm">part</a> of their <a href="own.htm">own</a> business.<br/>
<br/>
But they may be ignored as we "go around" them seeking <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
For example:<br/>
<br/>
Let's say we begin the "<a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom Cafe".<br/>
<br/>
Let's also say we were able to organize enough pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing customers<br/>
that the entire corporation is <a href="user.htm">user</a>-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
Now, when a potential customer arrives that has insufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership,<br/>
we will sell him a meal too, but will charge a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small>.<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*<br/>
him. So if he paid $5 for a hamburger that only <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> us $3.75 to deliver,<br/>
Then we would be investing that $1.25 by purchasing wheat fields <small>(for<br/>
the bun)</small>, tomato fields <small>(tomatoes and ketchup)</small>, spice fields, beef cattle,<br/>
etc. and all the tools and wages needed to turn those <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es into future<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts - so he incrementally gains <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership to such a degree that he<br/>
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<br/>
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/>
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/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-19-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://OpenKollab.GoogleGroups.com">OpenKollab.GoogleGroups.com</a><br/>
Subject: Our Kitchen <small>(was: Local Foods <a href="ecos.htm">Ecos</a>ystem: membership restaurants?)</small><br/>
<br/>
Alex Linsker wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> My signature: "I will <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> $12-15 per meal or subscribe</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> at $15-25/day or around $600/month.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> My goal is to get 1,000 signatures, and then commit our buying power</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to someone who <a href="start.htm">start</a>s a restaurant.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Here is another <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el causing a much <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> outcome:<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Get 1,000 potential customers to commit $100 each<br/>
<small>(or 100 people at $1,000 - or allow any size investment)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Then <a href="use.htm">use</a> that $100,000, to open a <a href="new.htm">NEW</a> restaurant <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by THOSE <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
It would not be "one member == one vote", but each <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>er would have exactly as much vote as he has <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
So, instead of hoping a random business <a href="own.htm">own</a>er will do as we please,<br/>
maybe *WE* <small>(a group of pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing consumers)</small> could <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of the things we need?<br/>
<br/>
Then we could hire a manager and some cooks and custodian, etc.<br/>
We would <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of operation - just as a normal restaurant.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
There would be three primary <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erences:<br/>
<br/>
1. We, <small>(the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing customers)</small>, would have full control of everything, including the <a href="menu.htm">menu</a> and operating hours.<br/>
<br/>
2. We, <small>(the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing customers)</small>, would never <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the extra expense of<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, so would receive everything "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
3. To address the issue of "non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing" customers we simply charge them "what the market will bear" <small>(so we would collect <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> from them)</small>, but then treat their overpayment as though they were also investing - so that as the kitchen/restaurant grows - as we open a <a href="new.htm">new</a> location, etc., the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of those <a href="new.htm">new</a> investments will be retained by the original <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er - so that eventually EVERYONE would be invested in their <a href="own.htm">own</a> local <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed kitchen so that every <a href="user.htm">user</a> has the <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom that comes from control which can be gained through regular <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
----<br/>
In light of the goals of OpenKollab:<br/>
<br/>
A more <a href="real.htm">real</a>istic variation would have some percentage of the initial inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s be regular <small>(or "social leaning" VC)</small>, while the rest would be future customers. That would cause non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing consumers to receive less than full <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of the investments made from the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>, but would still move us the right direction - just more slowly.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<a href="social sufficiency coalition.htm">Social Sufficiency Coalition</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com">http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-14-2010:</span> Unsent post meant for <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/pipermail/P2PResearch_listcultures.org">ListCultures.org/pipermail/P2PResearch_listcultures.org</a>, CC: <a href="rms.htm">RMS</a>@<a class="ext" href="http://GNU.org">GNU.org</a><br/>
Subject: Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es for <a href="free.htm">Free</a> <a href="hard.htm">Hard</a>ware <small>(was: <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom and the Purpose of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small><br/>
<br/>
Sam Rose wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Example: if you look at projects like <a class="ext" href="http://makerbeam.com">http://makerbeam.com</a> which <a href="use.htm">use</a>d</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> "kick<a href="start.htm">start</a>er" to raise <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s so that they would <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e and release</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> technology, this is one step away from "pre-purchase".</span><br/>
<br/>
But those consumers are <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for completed *<a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects* instead of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for _<a href="real.htm">real</a>_ <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Physical *<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es* required for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
Without <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, the consumers are at the mercy of those who DO <a href="own.htm">own</a> the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
But we don't want to <a href="use.htm">use</a> violence or theft to take those factories and farms from the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
We will *buy* the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Those consumers do not have full control <small>(<a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom)</small> because they are inhibited by those who *are* the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
Now, I understand we don't want a bunch of un<a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed consumers trying to run a factory.<br/>
<br/>
I'm not talking about trying to convince any Capitalist to give-up<br/>
treating the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> he collects in the manner he sees fit. That<br/>
is his <small>(unfortunately unsocial)</small> business.<br/>
<br/>
I'm talking about creating <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> enterprises that treat<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as an investment from the consumer who paid it.<br/>
<br/>
The people who begin these special organizations will need to<br/>
have a larger vision of 'why', but it is possible. So-called<br/>
Non-<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>s do far less than this and yet are quite <a href="pop.htm">pop</a>ular.<br/>
<br/>
I'm talking about getting consumers to co-buy the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es<br/>
of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <small>[such as a milk dairy]</small> so they have full control<br/>
while also receiving those <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ectives "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
They don't necessarily need to <a href="work.htm">work</a> there, but must somehow<br/>
cover the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, including the wages for those who do.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> One problem in the <a href="real.htm">real</a> world is that of trust. How do project</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants <a href="know.htm">know</a> they are not pre-purchasing "vaporware"? This factor</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> could sometimes sink some efforts that cannot convince people to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> pre-purchase.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, but that is always true. <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion is never guaranteed.<br/>
<br/>
Once we create <a href="free.htm">Free</a> <a href="hard.htm">Hard</a>ware corporations that reach a<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> In the case of what I am talking about, if all of these people pool</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and pre-purchase materials, while sharing the IP, there is <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> nothing for them to "<a href="own.htm">own</a>" <small>(there is no company or entity which they</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> are buying into)</small>.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I suppose that in your <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el, the material suppliers would have to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> to sell <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in their companies with every purchase</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> by open manufacturing project <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants, etc.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> But since those supplier companies likely won't do it,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and there may be no other <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful supplier,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I don't see how to fully exercise your <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el in the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="real.htm">real</a> world in the context of open manufacturing.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Maybe you can help me understand?</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-14-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/pipermail/P2PResearch_listcultures.org">ListCultures.org/pipermail/P2PResearch_listcultures.org</a><br/>
Ryan Lanham wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> > I am not against <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s. But I am against <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s for the sake of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s. We simply don't understand the world yet where they don't exist in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > a dominant way. It is coming fairly quickly, however.</span><br/>
<br/>
I hope this is true, but if so, then why would anyone invest?<br/>
<br/>
My answer to that is: Let's get the end-<a href="user.htm">user</a> <small>(or consumer)</small> to invest<br/>
for "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t <small>(think of it as a pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment plan)</small> since he<br/>
would then receive those outputs without <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> while also<br/>
gaining the control he has for so long been without.<br/>
<br/>
On a related <a href="note.htm">note</a>: What would you say is the 'origin' of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>? Why<br/>
does the consumer consent to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, and what is<br/>
the 'correct' treatment of that value in the better system?<br/>
<br/>
My answer is to treat that overpayment as though the consumer were<br/>
<a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing a tiny investment - so he slowly gains <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means<br/>
of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion for the purpose of solidifying his ability to receive<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" while also helping him gain the control he needs to<br/>
finally be able to claim "<a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom" in the physical <a href="real.htm">real</a>m.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's investment allows growth to occur, but<br/>
causes the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in that growth is 'distributed' to those who are<br/>
willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Thanks,<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/>
<a class="ext" href="http://patware.FreeShell.org">http://patware.FreeShell.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-11-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://keimform.de/2010/01/11/commons-in-a-taxonomy-of-goods">keimform.de/2010/01/11/commons-in-a-taxonomy-of-goods</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-06-2010:</span><br/>
<br/>
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson@<a class="ext" href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> " Is barter taxable? "</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> " are gifts taxable ? "</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> " is leeching taxable ? "</span><br/>
<br/>
The layers of government we endure will tax anything *they* see fit - for as long as *they* are able to strong-arm us into <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing.<br/>
<br/>
On the one hand, groups will choose to tax themselves<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
should be collected to achieve<br/>
is the desire for "public <a href="work.htm">work</a>s"<br/>
<br/>
Have you ever asked yourself why income-tax and sales-tax<br/>
<br/>
to punish improvements?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jan-05-2010:</span> Once again the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er is disregarded while the developer takes front-seat at <a class="ext" href="http://JASecon.org">JASecon.org</a> <span class="quot2">>>JAS<a href="econ.htm">econ</a> is an informal grouping of folks active in the social justice and <a href="work.htm">work</a>er co-op communities.</span><br/>
</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-jan-2010">diary-jan-2010</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>