[p2p-research] Capital Club

[Patrick Anderson]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:12 PM, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 07:50:55 AM -0700, Patrick Anderson wrote:
>
>  > >  > Organizing with your neighbors to buy a rug-doctor is cheaper
>  > >  > if there are enough of you to keep that equipment busy, so why
>  > >  > don't we (consumers) do this more often?  Why do we leave that
>  > >  > work of organizing up to a business that intends to charge us
>  > >  > price above cost?
>  > >
>  > >  Maybe because (using the rug-doctor as a real world example):
>  > >
>  > >  - we have no _space_ where to store a Rug Doctor
>  >
>
>  > This is a very good point.  The rental agency probably has space
>  > because they are storing so many other tools, and planned to store
>  > such a machine.
>  >
>  > We need to collectively buy and own community centers that we have
>  > *real* ownership in where we can store such things.  I was going to
>  > save this for a later part of the discussion, I'll ask it now:
>  >
>  > Why are we not allowed to store such things in a city-tax-funded
>  > facility?
>
>  such facilities may be planned in new cities. In most existing cities
>  I've seen so far, such facilities would either be not doable (lack of
>  suitable space), or so expensive to create vehement oppositions from
>  all citizens who have parquets instead of carpets (ie no personal need
>  for the facility, because they _already_ bought a house with storage
>  space or, very simply, the city has more urgent things to fix first
>  with its limited budget) or far enough from most users/owners to make
>  driving there to grab the rug doctor or whatever it is unconvenient.
>
>  Distinguishing what is feasible in the new perfect city to be built
>  tomorrow from what is feasible (and necessary/urgent) in the cities we
>  actually live in may be the hardest part.

I have long ago given up on ever changing any current government.

Part of what I'm trying to explain is that collective private
ownership can fulfill any function a government has ever ever claimed
to be fulfilling.  The estate becomes the state.

It is important, because it allows us to write our own constitution
(adding private 'laws' for access to that property).  We can't delete
laws from the 'containing' government, but we will hopefully be able
to overgrow them and make them unimportant.

>
>  This doesn't change the fact that this:
>
> > What makes it so we (the citizens) have almost no control
>  > in government - even at the city level?
>
>  _is_ one of the big problems of our time.
>
>
>  > >  - we have no skills to fix it when it breaks
>  >
>  > Yes, but the rental-agency owner probably doesn't either.  He hires
>  > someone to fix such things, and supplies the tools for that work to
>  > avoid the overcharging a tool-owning mechaninc would impose.  We
>  > need to be able to *work* in our community center too.  Trading
>  > labor there should be one of the main purposes of a community
>  > center.
>
>  This is another crucial point. I and most city people I know would
>  probably hurt ourselves by fixing all the tools we use. Much more
>  important is the fact that trading labor directly in such a way may
>  simply be against an advanced (in the really important,
>  true-quality-of-life sense) society. Being actually able to do all I
>  need to live by myself is wonderful: being _forced_ to do it is an
>  entirely different thing and, I believe, puts a limit to how well
>  people can live.

I think you misunderstood me.  I am very much on your side.  I
wouldn't want to force anyone to do anything.

When I said "trading labor" I was saying there will probably be alot
more specialization when the consumers have "at cost" access to the
means of production.

To clarify further, keep the simplest case (the dumb rug-doctor for
instance) in mind.  If you and some neighbors purchased such a thing,
none of those people would have the ability to force you to operate it
for them.

>
>  An extreme example is health care: I want the doctors in my city
>  emergency room as experienced as possible. They shouldn't be required,
>  if they _don't_ want to do it as a hobby, to waste time fixing tools
>  in the community center instead of resting (in the broader sense, not
>  just sleeping) or practicing.

Absolutely.  I am only talking about collective ownership.  There is
no coercion.  If the doctor had ownership in the rug-doctor, he could
pay for the costs of maintenace in whatever way the other collective
owners would accept.  He might even be able to convince them to waive
part or all of his recurring fees as a kind of medical insurance for
them (within his skill limits of course).  Most likely he would just
pay that 'rent' with the standard currency of the nation they find
themselves in, or later, hopefully with some sort community currency.

>  Same here:
>
>
>  > Imagine a car-repair shop or a woodworking shop where you could go
>  > use the expensive tools "at cost".  Wouldn't it be nice to have real
>  > control, and stop suffering the usury that currently keeps us from
>  > the rich lives we deserve?
>
>  Having access to such a possibility, yes. I'm all for giving people
>  more choice. But being forced to do everything by myself... I'm really
>  not sure it would make my own life, or society as a whole, richer.

No, no.  No force.  You can hire anyone advertising their skills for
that work.  But notice you would only need to pay their wages and
whatever other real costs for your extra wear or consumption on the
collective equipment.

For example, imagine going to the car shop to find a mechanic.  The
mechanics would be strangely independent while having "at cost" access
to whatever expensive tools the collective consumers had purchased.

It should  be easy to attract local mechanics (they wouldn't
neccessarily need to be owners) because you could pay them higher
wages than the local Capitalist shop while still paying less than you
would have if you had gone to the Capitalist shop.

If you had some of the skills, or just wanted to learnl, you also
always have the option of using the tools yourself if the other
collective owners agree that you 'qualify'.

I'm not trying to write any policy here, I'm just talking about how
things already are for very small groups who choose to co-own some
Capital.

>
>  > >  - (semi-serious) we, that is any generic group of neighbors in a
>  > >   generic city, all hate each other and the least interact the better
>  > >   we feel:-)
>  >
>  > I think most people actually want to interact with others,
>
>  But in the ways and contexts _they_ choose, be they professional or
>  private ones. That's the crucial difference. Even if this:

Again, it is not different from what I am proposing.  I am mostly only
talking about what very small groups of co-owners *already* do.

For instance, if two people buy a house together, they will have
fights about all kinds of things, but each of them always has choice
about how the chores should be accomplished, and whether they want to
interact, etc.  It is THEIR business.  No external body should be
interfering to force anything upon them (even though the current,
containing 'state' will continue to interfere until we can overgrow
them...).


Patrick