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