Message 04604 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04596 Message: 7/93 L5 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] reprap, exploitation, free goods etc

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]

I could just as easily dismiss everything you talk about as "Puer Economic

I don't think that you have hit on some kind of seminal, irreducible "core"
of human systems problem solving with your proposed economic ideas.

Economic ideas are only useful if people will use them.

I think your concepts are sound, as I've said before. But, I'd challenge you
to find even 10 people who are willing to adopt what you suggest in
practice. Who are willing to *invest* in your idea, by adopting and
employing it.

I think in time, maybe 3 years, maybe 5 years, maybe more, that more people
will emerge who's thinking is aligned with yours. But, at this time, it's
too radically different from the way that most people are solving their
problems of existence.

This is why I concentrate on ways of solving problems of existence that
don't demand or insist that everyone must stop solving problems in part by
employing capitalistic systems. because, everyone won't. I want to make
systems that can *interface* with existing systems, and even employ them. I
don't accept that just because you have found a better economic model that
it is unethical and immoral, or irrelevant that I do not immediately adopt

For instance, an even better economic model than the one that you are
proposing would be for me, and everyone else to just give everything to each
other for free, and completely trust that every person would supply every
other person with something. This is even more theoretically efficient than
UserOwned. Not only is there no "Price above cost", there is NO PRICE AT
ALL! In my model, not just "users" or consumers own the means of production.
EVERYONE owns them! So, I don't understand why you don't adopt my
"everything is free" model over "User Owner"?  My model is obviously the
most ethical, moral choice that there could ever be in an economic model,

But seriously, I believe that to have the highest likelihood for success in
actually seeing change, that the conditions for helping change happen must
emerge first.

It is my belief that everything that you are dismissing as "*pure design*"
is in fact helping to create the conditions of change that people who are
*locked* into current paradigms need. It's clear to me, at least, that a
huge swath of people are not anywhere near giving up their current solutions
(ie exchanging money for goods). I think a possible pathway is for people to
find ways to eliminate the need to depend on the entities that help bolster
and support price above cost. Then, when these people have some breathing
room, and some of the long standing economic pressure is removed, they can
start build the cultural infrastructure, and personal literacies that WILL
be needed for a solution like the one that you propose.

You'd be surprised at how many people don't really know how to collaborate,
how to be involved in civic ways, how to build and sustain good
relationships, all of which would be needed for people to succeed in the
model you describe.

We are getting closer, though. The paradigm of a "commons", and the
accompanying emerging ways that people are learning to co-manage them is
leading towards groups of people who will be able to sustain "user owned"

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius>


I didn't find any references to Graham's work here.

I've gone through each post and noted the deficiencies in each.

"How Open is VIA's OpenBook Design?"
*Pure Design*

"What are the specific challenges for open hardware?"
*Pure Design*

"Kevin Carson on peer production as a crisis of capitalism"
Kevin is working on sharing physical sources among DEVELOPERS, not
among CONSUMERS, so has an end-goal of ensuring profit even though
profit can be safely eliminated when physical sources are co-owned by
the consumers.

"Building a post-scarcity society in a patent-and-copyright-encumbered
intellectual climate"
*Pure Design*

"Peernet: Constructing the Open Mesh"
At least Sepp is talking about physical sources here, but it sounds
like all of it will be individually owned.  There is no sharing as far
as I can tell.

"Marcin Jakubowski comments on Stan Rhodes' Peer Trust Network proposal"
This is as close as we get.  Stan is working on the real issue:
sharing physical sources.

His approach is different from mine, and it sounds like he has decided
sharing physical sources will require more technology?!

"Such a productive infrastructure may consist of digital and flexible
production Fab Labs fueled by open design. This way, an entire, robust
economy may be created to provide the wealth generation required by
prospective entrants into a property trust. I believe simply that
without such robust, low-cost, replicable production capacity, it is
too expensive or complicated to generate a productive economy
necessary for inviting people into a commons."

My approach can happen right now with the most ancient of technologies.

"Marcin Jakubowski: an appeal for global collaboration on open product
*Pure Design*

"Steve Bosserman on Economic Sustainability in a world of Open Design"
*Pure Design*

"Marcin Jakubowski: A call for open engineering and a commons
coalition for P2P Energy"
*Pure Design*

"Proposed OSE specifications aim to guarantee truly open physical peer
*Pure Design*

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:29 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004>
[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Quite a bit of background material already in the blog, including
to Graham's earlier definitional work:


On 6/8/08, Patrick Anderson <agnucius> wrote:

Oops, I meant:

Even if Rep-Rap did what it claimed, "self-replicating" is NOT the

solution to the problems facing society.

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius>
Even if Rep-Rap did what it claimed, "self-replicating" is the
solution to the problems facing society.

Wheat is already self-replicating (except when Monsanto gets
involved), yet we have almost none left in the US because the insane
drive to keep price above cost caused legislation (the 1996 Farm Bill)
eliminating 'our' reserves.

The solution we keep avoiding is discovering how to share physical
sources in a manner analogous to how Free Software helps us share
virtual sources.

The GPL Society requires physical production, not just "Open Design",
and physical production requires physical sources (traditionally
called the "Means of Production").

Making physical sources available "at cost" to the consumers that use
those products would create a dynamic similar to what Free Software
does in the 'virtual' realm when it makes virtual sources available
"at cost" to the users of those products.

I have an idea how to do this, but it's a bit long-winded.


On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:19 AM, graham <graham> wrote:

discussion on several different oekonux related themes..

Contact: projekt

Contact: projekt

The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at; Newsletter, at

Basic essay at; interview at

KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,

[2 text/html]
Contact: projekt

Contact: projekt

Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
AIM: Str9960
Linkedin Profile:
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose

Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:
Information Filtering:

[2 text/html]
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04596 Message: 7/93 L5 [In index]
Message 04604 [Homepage] [Navigation]