Re: [ox-en] Re: Open Source and Open Money
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:49:14 +0100
Hi Ernie and all!
I'm reading thread by thread so I may raise points already answered in
other mails. Anyway.
3 days ago ernie yacub wrote:
One of the core ideas of open money is that anybody that uses money can use
more, especially if it means they can get on with what they love rather
than working for some globocorp. LETS and other open money systems provide
the means for all to have their own money.
The non-scarcity of community currencies seems to be a key point.
Hmm...
Programmers, and others, can
then be paid for their "hobby" in money that circulates within their
communities and pays for some of the basic necessities of life.
...and you immediately introduce a scarcity here: It must be money
which circulates somewhere. So a currency I'm introducing out of
nothing is of no use to me as to anyone else. You're pointing this out
yourself:
[copied from below]
When programmers start accepting community
^^^^^^^^^
money, i will be able to pay them.
If community money won't be scarce you won't have a problem with
someone accepting the money you introduced from nothing some minutes
ago.
So community money is a scarce resource because not everything counts
as valid money (i.e. is accepted by a relevant number of persons for
exchange) but only certain forms of money. I can't introduce a
currency from nothing but have to rely on some social ongoings I have
little influence on - ok, it's more influence than on conventional
money but that's not my point here.
As Keith Hart wrote in his book, Money in an Unequal World, "money is the
problem and the solution." Conventional money, simply because of the way
it works, creates unsustainable economies - corporations get bigger, people
poorer, the earth suffers. Because it is scarce, people will do anything
to get it.
As I pointed out I think it's a result of the more fundamental
principle of societies based on exchange.
Community money is very different by design. It is created in sufficient
supply, by us, when needed. It's only utility is as an exchange medium -
it works when it moves.
This is true for conventional money as well: Only moving money is
capital and only then it works.
If hoarding money would be "useful" in societies based on exchange
stock markets would not exist. In fact stock markets are one of the
most advanced means to move money and to use it as capital.
What is also of great interest is how open source and open money will work
synergistically to create the kind of world we desire. Both arise from
anarchist principles of mutual aid,
No, Free Software does not arise from mutual aid. This is an aspect
but not the key factor. However, lately as I think we finally found
the link between Free Software / GPL society and anarchism:
From [http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg00214.html]:
As far as I can tell, self-enfolding is just the positive expression of the
concept of anarchy. Whereas to use the word "anarchy" emphasizes and what's
not there, using "self-enfolding" emphasizes what is there.
which work best when we acknowledge the
gift.
Which boils down to exchange...
Naturally, there are many possible problems with such a system. What
happens, for instance, if people establish accounts on a LETS system, "buy"
expensive items, and then leave without ever having sold anything
themselves? Essentially, they've stolen from the community.
The first answer to this is seller beware - caveat venditor - do you know
the person you are selling the expensive stuff to, either directly or by
reputation? The other answer is a question - as a seller, what have you
lost? The money you have been paid is still good - like getting normal
cash instead of a cheque. The system continues to function despite people
leaving and dying with negative balances.
If too many
people do this, the system will collapse.
What kind of community is this? Certainly not one that i would want to do
business in anyway.
Hah, your changing the field of argument here. But there is a core in
what you say. Lacking a social glue people must be moral to not do
what is obviously the right thing looking at their interest as
atomized individuals: Maximize their own benefit on the expense of
others.
This doesn't work in capitalism and I'm convinced this won't work in
any society. It needs to be in the direct interest of someone not to
live on expense of others - and that is what we see in Free Software.
Thanks for opening up this discussion. We see great potential in the
convergence of open money and open source.
Thought I doubt it is possible to converge open money and Free
Software I find that discussion pretty interesting. I learnt something
about Free Software and I'm better understanding what open money is
about and from that understanding I can learn more about the issues
I'm mainly concerned with.
And no, this is not an exchange. I'm not selling my thoughts to you
and don't buy yours - not mentioning about the lurkers here. There is
a flow of thoughts - sure. However, that this flow is in a useful
state is my own interest because I'm taking direct advantage of this
flow. This is all very similar to the way Free Software is developed -
but not to the way exchange works.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/