[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Vertically Integrated Permaculture Mosaic

From: Patrick Anderson
Subject: Re: Vertically Integrated Permaculture Mosaic
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:45:25 -0600

Mark Holmquist wrote:
> Digital freedom has to do with the freedom to use
> your own tools, things you own, any way you'd like.

Yes, we tend to focus on individual User Freedom and
seem to assume that is all we can do.

But the next stage in User Freedom will be to organize
*groups* of Users to buy and co-own the Means of every
product we use.

For example, we do not co-own the ISPs and cell-phone
networks we use, and so must accept the current owners
arbitrarily shutting ports and sniffing packets and
overcharging and generally dominating us because we
do not co-own those physical assets.

> What you're discussing here isn't about individual
> freedoms

You are right.

I am talking about *group* freedoms, which are much
more complicated, but worth the extra complexity
because of the control and effeciency they offer.

> it's about changing the economic system

Well, it is about creating GNU corporations that are
structured in this way, not about begging politicians
to do anything differently.

> We would technically own the MOP, but we wouldn't
> then be free to go in and tinker

We will tinker in groups.

> going in and accidentally breaking the
> dairy machines would be suboptimal.

Yes, but each group could make that choice.

If a group wanted to tinker with the machines they
own, they could do so.

Individuals within such a group might disagree, and so
should voice their opinion (vote).  This is a
complicated matter, but is no different from any
corporation that is co-owned by many individuals.

> There would almost certainly be laws, or at least
> rules, to prevent such things.

Yes, each group would have their own specific rules
that they decide upon as a group.

> I mean, there might be some merit to these ideas,
> but it's not something that the FSF necessarily
> wants to promote. As far as I can tell, the FSF
> tries to reach out to companies, saying that free
> software is compatible with viable business models
> that work in a capitalist society.

Organizing Users to co-own the MOP in groups will
solve most of the problems that the FSF complains
about with regards to harware, such as "Defective By
Design", complaints about the iPhone, Tivoization,
etc. because we, as groups, will then co-own factories
where we can manufacture hardware that respects our

> And in general, as free software advocates, it's a
> lot harder for us to fight for individual freedoms
> *and* massive social change at the same time

We can no longer stay in our caves while hoping the
corporations will start playing nicely of their own

Regular corporations *cannot* do what the Users
expect, because to do so would remove the barriers
that keep price above cost; and since the investors in
regular corporations expect that difference (called
Profit) as the return for their investments, regular
corporations are forever pitted against the users they
pretend to want to serve.

But when the Users invest to co-own corporations with
Product as their ROI, then there is no conflict
between Users and Owners - since they are one in the
same, and there is no Profit (except when selling
surplus), and so price and cost are identical since
the Product is not even sold when it is already in the
hands of those who need it.

Patrick Anderson

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]