-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
diary-may-2010.htm
444 lines (441 loc) · 40.3 KB
/
diary-may-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
<?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-may-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></span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-31-2010:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://WasatchCoop.org">WasatchCoop.org</a> suffers from the same confusion as all our organizational efforts: <span class="quot2">>>To be <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>able for the cooperative and its <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-27-2010:</span> Mass <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion -> <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tive Mass<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-27-2010:</span> How to communicate the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between the 'physical' and '<a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual' <a href="real.htm">real</a>ms.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> Physical<br/>
animal<br/>
body<br/>
carnal<br/>
corp<br/>
direct<br/>
flesh<br/>
gravity<br/>
instance<br/>
mass<br/>
material<br/>
<a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect<br/>
physical<br/>
sensual<br/>
soma<br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e<br/>
stuff<br/>
tangible<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <a href="virt.htm">Virt</a>ual<br/>
type<br/>
class<br/>
<a href="emu.htm">emu</a>lated<br/>
simulated<br/>
translated<br/>
<a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ualized<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-27-2010:</span> Layer 0: Hosting the Physical<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-27-2010:</span> Reigning <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom -- The Sunny side of <a href="cloud.htm">Cloud</a>y <a href="compu.htm">Compu</a>ting<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-27-2010:</span> Posted to <a href="lib.htm">Lib</a>rePlanet-Discuss@<a class="ext" href="http://GNU.org">GNU.org</a> <small>(revised)</small><br/>
<br/>
Subject: On the impossibility of sharing <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware<br/>
<br/>
Could we ever learn to share the <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware needed to host 'regular' server-based <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software to compete with FaceBook?<br/>
<br/>
I can't seem to find any discussion of that <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult step.<br/>
<br/>
I have some <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as about how to approach the problem, but don't <a href="know.htm">know</a> if this is an ap<a href="prop.htm">prop</a>riate forum for such a discussion?<br/>
<br/>
Even more aggressively I want to talk about how we, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s, can <a href="own.htm">own</a> and control the entire physical layer to become a <a href="free.htm">Free</a> as in <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom ISP and cell-phone services, etc.<br/>
<br/>
Anyone have any <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as or pointers to groups or lists addressing this subject?<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">May-26-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
<br/>
Michel Bauwens wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> society consists of dynamic and less dynamic individuals,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the first get ahead,</span><br/>
<br/>
Or are ahead because they were born into it - from "old <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y".<br/>
<br/>
Or are ahead because they murdered to gain that position.<br/>
<br/>
Being ahead may not indicate worthiness - in fact it often indicates the opposite!<br/>
<br/>
Those who are ahead should consider all others and should wonder why there is a divide at all.<br/>
<br/>
There is a deep flaw in our system <small>(raw Capitalism)</small> that <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es the rich richer and the poor poorer.<br/>
<br/>
This is caused by the Positive Feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> Loop constructed when we 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 instead of understanding it to be a plea for growth from the latecomer who just paid it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> and by doing so, create the conditions for the s<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>d to progress,</span><br/>
<br/>
Bullshit. The rich do not want the poor to progress. They want exactly the opposite - for if the poor were to gain the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty needed to get out from under the thumb of those who are 'ahead', then the value called <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> would no longer flow out of those <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers and into the hands of the parasites who subjugate society and purposefully murder our planet to perpetuate the scarcity that <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> requires.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> and this is good ...</span><br/>
<br/>
Either I am misunderstanding you or you are suggesting the rich "ought to get richer" because they are simply superior humans and the poor are poor simply because they are inferior.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-25-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://OpenKollab.net">OpenKollab.net</a><br/>
<br/>
Mark Janssen wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> It's interesting that you conceptualize it in terms of "<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion":</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion has little <a href="use.htm">use</a> in and of itself <small>(unless you define animals in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> nature as "<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive")</small>.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>ts are, of course, the 'results' or 'outputs' of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
For humans, the most <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amental <small>(cannot do without)</small> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts are food and medicine which are primarily <small>(and could be solely)</small> aquired from <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive plants and animals.<br/>
<br/>
The reason I talk about "<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion" is because of the importance of these outputs. Did you eat breakfast? Will you eat lunch and dinner? Where did those inputs come from?<br/>
<br/>
Most <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion within our <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent system <small>(raw Capitalism)</small> is not done "for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t", but is ignorantly done "for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>"; and so we face <a href="mount.htm">mount</a>ains of trouble caused by this misdirected effort to keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> which requires scarcity therefore promoting destruction and even war.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion I talk about is "for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t". We cannot <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e without some <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, for we must consume the outputs of plants and animals and also must repair our shelters and clean our bodies, etc.<br/>
<br/>
We <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently face a terrible but mostly unspeakable crisis in that we do not <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of these <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts.<br/>
<br/>
We try to <a href="own.htm">own</a> some of these plants and animals individually, in solitary confinement through gardening and DIY tools etc.<br/>
<br/>
But we haven't yet discovered how to *share* <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion - leaving that to "for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>" corporations who care nothing of the <a href="use.htm">use</a>-value of those commodities <small>(except for their outward appearance for the purpose of tricking us into purchasing them)</small>. Their only goal is to keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
We do not <a href="know.htm">know</a> how to 'scale' any "for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t" organization primarily because we have been fooled into believing <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> arises as a result of labor, and so almost universally tend to begin with the unquestioned false notion that the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers should be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion and that <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> should be treated as their reward.<br/>
<br/>
It is easy to see <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> <small>(the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between Consumer <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e and <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s)</small> is actually a result of the Consumers' lack of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership using the following example:<br/>
<br/>
Let's say a small group of olive-eaters co-buy an olive orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> for their <a href="own.htm">own</a> good.<br/>
<br/>
They must <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, but they do not <small>(and cannot)</small> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> because they do not *buy* the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t at the end of the season, but <a href="own.htm">own</a> it already - as a sort of "side effect" of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
This is true of any and all <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> has nothing to do with <a href="work.htm">Work</a> and has everything to do with Consumer dependence upon the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers and so should be treated as an investment from the Consumer who paid it - so he also gains the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership needed to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> him from those who would otherwise exploit his lack of preparedness.<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">May-25-2010:</span> Listening to <a class="ext" href="http://AWS.BlueHome.net/saas.html">AWS.BlueHome.net/saas.html</a> <span class="quot2">>>Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> M <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a>- Software as a Service - Given at <a href="lib.htm">Lib</a>rePlanet 2010, <a href="cam.htm">Cam</a>bridge, Massachusetts, USA, at the Harvard University Science Center. 20th March 2010.</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-21-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/bfs-faq.txt">http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/bfs-faq.txt</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-21-2010:</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="quot2">>> Samuel Rose wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot3">>>> re-invest the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Patrick Anderson wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Who will receive <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of those <a href="new.htm">new</a> investments?</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> <sarcasm>I'm sure it must not be those who paid them, right?</sarcasm></span><br/>
<br/>
Samuel Rose wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> What do you mean by "those who paid them"?</span><br/>
<br/>
I mean the persons who paid the value called '<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>'.<br/>
<br/>
The Consumers <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> this value, but in our <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent system they never gain any ground <small>(never acquire <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership)</small> because we misunderstand the origin and therefore the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a> 'destination' of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> only occurs when a Consumer lacks 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.<br/>
<br/>
Otherwise, when a Consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>s enough <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(say the eater of an Avocado is <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>er in an Avocado tree)</small>, then all <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s must be paid as usual, but <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> cannot be paid since there is no exchange of goods after <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. The Avocado is neither bought nor sold, but is *already* in the hands of the actor who will consume it and so <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> becomes 'undefined'.<br/>
<br/>
This seems to prove <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> has nothing to do with <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers hired to <a href="install.htm">install</a>, maintain, <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> or operate, the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
I am not trying to exploit the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er, I am trying to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> him "from underneath" by helping him <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d the foundation of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership he needs to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> his ability to Consume instead of pretending <a href="work.htm">Work</a> is a need in itself.<br/>
<br/>
This allows us to let Wages float according to the market <small>(any <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er can reverse-bid for any <a href="job.htm">job</a>)</small> without needing to <a href="prop.htm">prop</a> them up with '<a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ions' such as minimum-wages or labor unions, etc.<br/>
<br/>
It also <a href="free.htm">free</a>s us to utilize automation and robotics as much as we like without ever worrying about putting people "out of <a href="work.htm">work</a>" since we finally have the horse in-front of the cart so that creation is no longer 'destruction' and abundance is no longer a 'problem' and value is not in 'crisis'.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-20-2010:</span> Noticing these words:<br/>
reciprocate<br/>
resonate<br/>
recur<br/>
vibrate<br/>
pulse<br/>
oscillate<br/>
wave<br/>
vibrate<br/>
alternate<br/>
bounce<br/>
period<br/>
cycle<br/>
beat<br/>
rythm<br/>
season<br/>
phase<br/>
stroke<br/>
reflect<br/>
pendulum<br/>
shake<br/>
harmony/har<a href="moni.htm">moni</a>c<br/>
rotate<br/>
<br/>
A 'reciprocating' engine requires a "negative feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop" as does a sustainable <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic system.<br/>
<br/>
Does this relate to the pulsed DC-<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to create the so-called "charged water" and/or Brown's Gas/HHO?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2010:</span> Not yet Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://PaperDesk.sf.net">PaperDesk.sf.net</a> <span class="quot2">>>Manage every Window, <a href="pack.htm">Pack</a>age, Program, <a href="file.htm">File</a>, Setting of your <a href="gnunix.htm">GNUnix</a> <a href="operating system.htm">Operating System</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
Integrating the Window Manager, Control Panel, <a href="pack.htm">Pack</a>age Manager, <a href="file.htm">File</a> Manager, Display Manager, <a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>e <a href="edit.htm">Edit</a>or and Viewer, Video Player and <a href="edit.htm">Edit</a>or, Music Player and <a href="edit.htm">Edit</a>or, Text <a href="edit.htm">Edit</a>or, ...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism">Wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism</a> and <a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract">Wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-17-2010:</span> Not yet Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Groups.FSF.org/wiki/User:AGNUcius">http://Groups.FSF.org/wiki/User:AGNUcius</a><br/>
<br/>
Focused on solving the issue of <small>[<small>[<a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom]</small>]</small> in the physical <a href="real.htm">real</a>m through <small>[<small>[Customer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership Groups]</small>]</small> <small>(COGs)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
I question the<br/>
<br/>
We, groups of <a href="user.htm">user</a>s, will cooperatively purchase and manage 'regular' centralized servers '''for our <a href="own.htm">own</a> benefit'''.<br/>
<br/>
We will <a href="start.htm">start</a> a "<a href="free.htm">Free</a> as in <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom" wiki, e<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> service, a video hosting site, <a href="file.htm">file</a> <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age, <a href="cloud.htm">cloud</a> services, etc.<br/>
<br/>
We will <a href="use.htm">use</a> advertising or micro-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments to cover <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
For the <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ic case the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is that we, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s, will be the sole <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietors.<br/>
<br/>
For the dynamic case we will treat <small>[<small>[<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>]</small>]</small> as an investment from the <a href="user.htm">User</a> who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s it - so he gains the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership he needs to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> his <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="h2">==Explanatory pages==</span><br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <small>[<small>[<a href="general public law.htm">General Public Law</a>]</small>]</small><br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <small>[<small>[Hosting <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom]</small>]</small><br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <small>[<small>[Hosting <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom]</small>]</small><br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <small>[<small>[Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es]</small>]</small><br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <small>[<small>[<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>]</small>]</small><br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <small>[<small>[<a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty <a href="left.htm">Left</a>]</small>]</small><br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <small>[<small>[Short Circuit <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion]</small>]</small><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com">http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-14-2010:</span> <a href="start.htm">Start</a>ed <a class="ext" href="http://GNUnix.sf.net">GNUnix.sf.net</a><br/>
<br/>
Simplified X11 Desktop using an orthogonal set of re-branded "best of breed" applications.<br/>
<br/>
We also merge the "<a href="start.htm">Start</a> <a href="menu.htm">Menu</a>" with the "<a href="pack.htm">Pack</a>age Manager" and the "Window Manager" with "Bug Report/Feature Requests" for holistic ease of <a href="use.htm">use</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-14-2010:</span> Not yet Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://hPlusMagazine.com/articles/economy/peoples%E2%80%99-capitalism-pathway-abundance">hPlusMagazine.com/articles/economy/peoples%E2%80%99-capitalism-pathway-abundance</a><br/>
<br/>
Dr. James Albus wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Your example of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing an olive tree and eating some of the olives yourself is perfectly plausible. In fact anyone who grows vegetables in their <a href="back.htm">back</a> yard is an example.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> There are many other examples. Most of the early pioneers <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>t their <a href="own.htm">own</a> houses. A few people today actually <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d their <a href="own.htm">own</a> cars. Some people <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e their <a href="own.htm">own</a> clothes. If you are self sufficient enough you can <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e completely outside the <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic system. However, there are some things that individuals can't do for themselves. You can't <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d your <a href="own.htm">own</a> cell phone, or television set, or internet. You can't <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e your <a href="own.htm">own</a> gasoline or do your <a href="own.htm">own</a> brain surgery.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> If you want to enjoy life with all the <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ern conveniences such as flush toilets, running water, air conditioning, etc. you need to have a market where such things are offered for sale, plus a medium of exchange that is convenient to <a href="use.htm">use</a>, such as <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y, i.e., cash or cr<a href="edit.htm">edit</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> As to your question: How will we <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sure inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s always target <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion for which they have no interest in the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts thereof so <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will continue to flow?</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Under Peoples' Capitalism, investments would be through a mutual <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>, IRA, 401k, or Thrift Savings plan. This provides diversification of the portfolio and assures a more or less steady flow of dividends.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Jim Albus</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-12-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://hPlusMagazine.com/articles/economy/peoples%E2%80%99-capitalism-pathway-abundance">hPlusMagazine.com/articles/economy/peoples%E2%80%99-capitalism-pathway-abundance</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">>Submitted by Kcirtap Nosredna</span><br/>
<br/>
Dr. Albus,<br/>
<br/>
I've been envisioning your <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osal and am concerned that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, under certain conditions, will not be available as <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment for <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
The case I am examining occurs if the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a> <small>(and therefore <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>er)</small> in some Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion is also the *consumer* of the outputs of that industry.<br/>
<br/>
For a simplified example: If someone who likes olives invests in an olive tree <small>(or co-buys an orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> with some other consumers)</small>, then they must <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, but do not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> because they do not *buy* the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t at the end of the season, but <a href="own.htm">own</a> it already - as a sort of "side effect" of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion...<br/>
<br/>
Now this may seem like a good arrangement, since the consumer then gets goods "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" and under their full control. And if they have any extra olives, they can still charge <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> against anyone who needs to buy them.<br/>
<br/>
But the problem occurs when everyone on earth invests in this selfish manner - for then *nobody* will need to buy olives, but will instead be getting them "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" causing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> in that field to approach zero.<br/>
<br/>
How will we <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sure inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s always target <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion for which they have no interest in the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts thereof so <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will continue to flow?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-12-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://OnTheCommons.org/content.php?id=2399">OnTheCommons.org/content.php?id=2399</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-10-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://Dow5000.com/Brother%20can%20you%20spare%20a%20dime%20pg%202.htm">Dow5000.com/Brother%20can%20you%20spare%20a%20dime%20pg%202.htm</a> <span class="quot2">>>Torpedoes, tear gas, rotten eggs, brickbats, and planks <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to puncture truck tires figure in this latest effort of out belt farmers to boost the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es of their <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts to the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. Declaring a holiday on selling, thousands of farmers have been <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>keting the roads to "persuade" their neighbors to join in holding <a href="back.htm">back</a> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e for higher <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es. The movement began quietly but soon was dramatized by the dumping of several truckloads of milk on a road outside Sioux City, Iowa. The <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>kets allowed milk and cream for hospitals to enter, however, and they donated 2,200 gallons of milk to the un<a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ed. Suddenly <a href="real.htm">real</a>izing that 90 percent of the shipments from nearly milk-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers had been cut off, Sioux City people began frantically to order milk shipped by train from Omaha and to have the blockage run by trucks bearing armed deputy sheriffs. . . . At the height of the Sioux City milk war, two thousand sunburned and overall-clad farmers were <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>ing in tent colonies along the nine truck highways leading to that city. Some were armed with pitchforks for <a href="use.htm">use</a> on truck tires. But except for sporadic outbreaks the <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>keting has been peaceful, and truck drivers not amenable to arguments have been allowed to <a href="pass.htm">pass</a> on. On August 17, a crowd of 450 farmers, equipped with clubs and brickbats, tried to remove animals from <a href="stock.htm">stock</a>yard pens in Sioux City and from trucks which had run the blockade, but this attempt was repulsed by deputy sheriffs and city policemen. . . . .</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-10-2010:</span> <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>ified post to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
<br/>
<a href="trad.htm">Trad</a>itional taxation punishes Specialization by taxing the exchange of goods and services <small>(both through Income tax and through Sales tax)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
It Punishes Improvements Improvements and Clustering <small>(causing sprawl)</small> by taxing the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>t upon <a href="land.htm">Land</a> instead of taxing the "withholding of <a href="land.htm">Land</a>" from others. This is explained by Henry George in his book "Progress and Poverty" with the solution <a href="title.htm">title</a>d "Single Tax". See also: <a class="ext" href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Chris_Cook_on_P2P_Taxation_Reform">http://p2pfoundation.net/Chris_Cook_on_P2P_Taxation_Reform</a><br/>
<br/>
Tax can alternatively be thought of as the '<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>' portion of <a href="rent.htm">Rent</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Private <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers 'tax' those who <a href="use.htm">use</a> that <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
Instead of begging <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers or the politicians they puppeteer we can implement such a "tax as <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>" through <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership in a "Simulated Commons" <small>(see <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.net/Common_Property_Regime">P2PFoundation.net/Common_Property_Regime</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-05-2010:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://MetaPhorObservatory.com">MetaPhorObservatory.com</a> <span class="quot2">>>Where <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>ing metaphor is explained to death.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-05-2010:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://GlobalCommonsTrust.org">GlobalCommonsTrust.org</a> <span class="quot2">>>For several centuries, <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ern industrial societies have been <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>ing off the common capital of the planet. During this period, the world's natural and social re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es have been drastically under<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>ed and we have amassed huge debts to the environment, the poor and future generations. It has become increasingly clear that the businesses and governments which created these imbalances are also incapable of correcting them through their present policies.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-04-2010:</span> Posted to PostScarcity@<a class="ext" href="http://GoogleGroups.com">GoogleGroups.com</a><br/>
<br/>
Edward Miller wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Why can't <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers and consumers be the same people,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and <a href="own.htm">own</a> cooperatives on that basis.</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but will try to answer meaningfully.<br/>
<br/>
Today society we have a parasitic arrangement where massive <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of Capital are Consumers but do no valuable <a href="work.htm">work</a>. They are the true bums of our society.<br/>
<br/>
In a better world, every consumer will be a <a href="work.htm">work</a>er in some manner.<br/>
<br/>
And of course we already <a href="know.htm">know</a> every <a href="work.htm">work</a>er is the a consumer of *something*, for nobody can <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e without food and water and probably shelter and sanitation.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> One reason a consumer may not be the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t he needs is because of "variance in <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>".<br/>
For example, even if they have access to all the tools, most people cannot troubleshoot and fix problems with diesel engines.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Another reason a Consumer may not be the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t he needs is because of "need of help".<br/>
For example, even if they have access to all the tools, *nobody* can perform brain-surgery upon themselves.<br/>
<br/>
3.)</small> Another reason a Consumer may not be the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t he needs is because it "improves efficiency".<br/>
For example, even if they have access to all the tools, it is valuable to have someone else cook for an entire neighborhood while I am out shoveling manure and others are programming <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ters, and others are fixing teeth, etc.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Instead of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing with <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y to become a member,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> you'd <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> with sweat equity.</span><br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>. We need <a href="land.htm">Land</a>, Capital, and Labor <small>(by 'Capital' I primarily mean Tools, <a href="buil.htm">Buil</a>dings, Energy, and all other inputs of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The reduced labor <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it better for the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> members-as-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers and the elimination of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> labor <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it better for the members-as-consumers and the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership aspect would <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it better for the members-as-<a href="work.htm">work</a>ers. Mix</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> this with open <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e, and then you don't have to hire a bunch of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> expensive smart people to reinvent wheels.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> The only problem is that this doesn't necessarily <a href="work.htm">work</a> so well for</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> narrow companies that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e few <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts. It would <a href="work.htm">work</a> better for</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> large vertically integrated companies. Perhaps the logical extension</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of that <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a would be an arcology where all members are <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> consumers, and <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers. Like a cruise ship or Disney<a href="land.htm">land</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, Let's <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e an "Everything <a href="work.htm">Work</a>shop" where you can <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> tools to <a href="work.htm">work</a> on cars, <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e furniture, <a href="use.htm">use</a> large washing <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines and expensive/heavy-duty sewing <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines, and get all of your meals "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
If nobody else is trying to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine when you want it, then it will be available "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
But if there is a scheduling conflict - if someone else want it at the same time - then you will bid against each other.<br/>
<br/>
The winner of that auction will be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing 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 will treat that overpayment as HIS investment toward the purchase of yet *another* instance of that type of tool since the fact there was a conflict proves there were an insufficient number of instances needed to meet peak demand...<br/>
<br/>
On the other side of this, as <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers of those tools begin to neglect their upkeep <small>(because they no longer care about them)</small>, then those who <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> - even when just <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing maintenance - should probably incrementally become the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers ... but this is a delicate matter that I have not fully explored.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Except under this scenario <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> could still exist for non-members.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> People could come visit your arcology and enjoy all the amenities as</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> long as they are willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> above-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> This still has the problem of late-entry members. Perhaps those sorts</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> would have to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e up for the lost sweat equity.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, we would charge "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <small>(<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small> against those who do not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> themselves from it, but would then treat that overpayment as an *investment* from the very same person who paid it.<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 causes those latecomers to incrementally gain their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty which means they eventually will also receive all goods and services "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Also, all sweat equity is not created equal, so this is a serious</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> issue. Valuable <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers perhaps could <a href="work.htm">work</a> less hours, but that would</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> probably seem unfair. Unless people are only admitted members if they</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> fall within a certain sweat equity value range. Which seems to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> exclusive, subjective, and conformist.</span><br/>
<br/>
There is something wrong with the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that <a href="work.htm">work</a> and time are <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ntical.<br/>
<br/>
One example of the trouble it causes is how it incents <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers to 'milk' an occupation - to drag-out the solution because to complete the <a href="job.htm">job</a> early becomes a punishment!<br/>
<br/>
We want to incent the automation and the elimination of drudgery.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="work.htm">Work</a> is not a need in itself, it is a hurdle on our road to success!<br/>
<br/>
We should reward clever solutions that destroy <a href="job.htm">job</a>s. If we are carrying water in buckets <small>(metaphorically)</small>, we want the "young whipersnapper" to feel safe enough to say "maybe we should lay some pipe".<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> So I think ultimately, each cruise ship needs to just have one member-</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="work.htm">work</a>er-<a href="own.htm">own</a>er and a bunch of robots. That is probably the logical</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> extension of mutualism.</span><br/>
<br/>
Are you saying we must do everything in solitary confinement?<br/>
<br/>
If so, then what is the point of this discussion?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-03-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://HPlusMagazine.com/articles/economy/peoples%E2%80%99-capitalism-pathway-abundance">HPlusMagazine.com/articles/economy/peoples%E2%80%99-capitalism-pathway-abundance</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-01-2010:</span> Posted to LUF-Team<br/>
<br/>
Greg wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> The *problem* with geothermal is that once the infrastructure is <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>t, the energy is essentially unlimited.</span><br/>
<br/>
That would be terrible! ;)</small><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> it is unlikely that oil companies will willingly give up their <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <small>(highly <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>able)</small> business <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el of continuously selling an expendable re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e in favor of a selling a one time service.</span><br/>
<br/>
You are assuming the "oil companies" would <a href="own.htm">own</a> the geothermal infrastructure.<br/>
<br/>
What would happen if we, the collective consumers of that energy, were<br/>
to organize and purchase the <a href="land.htm">land</a> and then <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d those facilities for<br/>
our *<a href="own.htm">own</a>* good?<br/>
<br/>
Our 'return' for our investments would be the energy itself. We<br/>
wouldn't need to scarcify the output because the reward would be<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t instead of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The only way to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a one time service as <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>able is to monopolize the service capabilities, jack up the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e, and otherwise limit supply through legislation <small>(i.e. <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing it illegal or bureacratically <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult for individuals to drill their <a href="own.htm">own</a> EGS)</small>.</span><br/>
<br/>
That is why we must return to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing for *<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t* instead of for *<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>*.<br/>
<br/>
When Consumers <a href="own.htm">own</a> the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion abundance is no longer<br/>
'bad' and efficiency can be maximized without danger.<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/>
</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-may-2010">diary-may-2010</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>