Re: [ox-en] Re: Governance and Incorporation (was Socialized Infrastructure (Sweden))
- From: Alex Rollin <alex.rollin gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:27:10 +0200
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
I'm working on prototyping some game setups (also know as corporate and
legal entities and organizations and stakeholder groups) to explore patterns
in mutual ownership of the means of production.
In many instances it is not, for example, possible to reward remote
investors with anything but state currency, so, this imperfect variable must
be watched, yes?
And a focus can be kept on, for example, minimizing profits for those who
are involved on a sweat equity level, especially locally, so that the common
good focus maintains primacy and spoils hierarchical context (or the power
it can have on motive.)
This might be done through credits against production of, say, food or
housing.
This is all very delicate, of course, since it involves some obfuscation if
there are multiple rewards systems, like profits in dollars for some but not
others. The profit of dollars is a sort of privilege, then, bestowed as a
measure of embeddedness in hierarchy, however artificial, yes?
One of the ways to handle this may be to group shareholders of production
assets together in a flat space, then...this would be a good way of
defending the '1 share, 1 vote' mode of governance.
In that case, then, those receiving rewards as direct credits against
production can be counted on to vote in favor of increasing production?
Of note is the idea that the direction chosen by investors can be countered
or vetoed by 'the commons,' as outlined in Chris Cook's presentations on the
role of the custodian in seeing to the vision of the long term care of the
production assets.
It's a complex system. Sorry to throw more pieces in there. Maybe someone
can shed some light on another way to simplify that role, too, as an
automata.
a
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:53 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hot or not, the analysis holds up
http://www.univie.ac.at/virtuallabs/Snowdrift/
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin gmail.com>
wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
OMG that is SOO HOT
"any hierarchy, including renewable hierarchies, is a structure that
rewards
"scarcity of unpaid
cooperation"
OMG
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:26 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>
wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Patrick,
The corporation as an organizational hierarchy, and I would argue,
based
on
relatively new work in evolutionary game theory (see Snowdrift Game vs
Prisoner's Dilemma thread on P2P Research), that any hierarchy,
including
renewable hierarchies, is a structure that rewards "scarcity of unpaid
cooperation" .. This is pretty deep, IMO.
Inspired leaders can say that they want to lead by uniting not dividing
but
the very structure of governance that subjugates 99% of the planet's
population, i.e. the hierarchical organization, is designed on the
principle
of divide and conquer.
At the very root of the p2p movement is the idea that unpaid
cooperation
is
rewarded. If we ignore this idea, as I had done with the P2P Energy
Economy,
we lose our moral basis in this debate.
The only viable incentive is the common good.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Marc
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius gmail.com
wrote:
Marc,
I sent this to p2p-research, but it bounced. I guess I need to
sign-up
again.
Could you give me your rough take on my questions at the end?
Thanks,
Patrick
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:02 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>
wrote:
/. wrote:
"Symmetric, 100 Mbps service in Stockholm costs $11/month [in
Stockholm.]
Conditions in every city are different, but part of the
explanation
for
the
low cost is that the city owns a municipal fiber network reaching
every
block. They lease network access to anyone who would like to offer
service.
The ISPs, including incumbent telephone and cable companies,
compete
on
an
equal footing."
If the customers are paying $11/month the ISPs are taking a profit,
then it *could* be even cheaper.
Right?
I mean, if the WE (any group with any need) knew how to share, then
the WE could pool their resources to lease the line and then share
the
benefits at cost. Right?
And if the WE were even more aggressive, the WE could even purchase
and *own* the Material Means of Production (the physical network in
this case).
Now the ./ article seems to imply that the WE (in Sweden) own those
lines.
But that is not quite true because the supposed WE (the city in this
case) will not lease the line directly to customers, but instead
require for-profit corporations become the "middle-men" - taking
control and value (profit) away from the customers.
There are more administrative costs if THEY (the city government)
were
also the ISP layer.
And the semi-valid argument against such a move is that it creates
centralized State Socialism.
The reason that argument has some validity is because almost all
governments are currently under the direction of Capitalist (profit
maximizing and therefore scarcity maximizing) corporations.
....
So we won't be able Govern ourselves effectively until we have
control
of Production.
But we can't control Production (can't organize effectively) until we
discover how to share the Material Means of Production.
And sharing Physical Sources for the purpose of maximizing freedom
and
(secondarily) utilization means we must know how to self-Govern.
So it seems we may be at an impasse.
We can't change our current governments directly (voting is theater)
because they are controlled by Capitalist Corporations.
And we can't change how we create *new* Corporations because we do
not
yet know precisely what is wrong with the current entities.
I mean, sure they're 'evil'. But what causes them to be such
bullies?
Is there any chance it is a structure that rewards scarcity?
If so, then where is the root of that reward?
Is profit related to scarcity? If so, then what shall be done with
it?
Patrick
--
Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
--
Alex
I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
--
Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
--
Alex
I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates
[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de