[p2p-research] [ox-en] Re: Governance and Incorporation (was Socialized Infrastructure (Sweden))

Mon Apr 20 02:02:51 CEST 2009

I don't usually scan through the Auto-discard notifications because
there are too many of them, but I thought this should go through.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: p2presearch-bounces at listcultures.org
<p2presearch-bounces at listcultures.org>
Date: Apr 19, 2009 4:48 PM
Subject: Auto-discard notification
To: p2presearch-owner at listcultures.org

The attached message has been automatically discarded.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Norie Huddle <noriehuddle at mac.com>
To: alex.rollin at gmail.com
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:48:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [ox-en] Re: Governance and Incorporation (was Socialized
Infrastructure (Sweden))
Hi Alex,
I've embedded some comments in your text.
Cheers, I'm offline for the rest of the night.
Norie

On Apr 19, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Alex Rollin wrote:
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?

In our case, remote investors might take rewards in the form of
destination vacations, spa services, etc., rather than money.  We can
get REALLY creative here, a kind of game.

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.)
Perhaps part of sweat equity could be rewarded with other people's
sweat equity - like a time dollars exchange..?

This might be done through credits against production of, say, food or
housing.Fine

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?If we decide we want / need to hang on to
money to use where only money will work for desired exchanges to take
place, the challenge is to think up various kinds of (non monetary)
rewards that will be attractive to various "investors"... related to
#1comment above.

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.Not
sure I understand this

In that case, then, those receiving rewards as direct credits against
production can be counted on to vote in favor of increasing
production?Concrete example would help

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.
We plan, in our case, to vet our investors so they understand our
vision and we understand theirs and we are aligned; if they prove not
to be aligned, we pay them off at the end of the minimal term of
investment and thank them, kiss them on the cheek and say bye
bye...OR, if they want to continue, they pay (take partial payment of
our debt to them) to go through programs that will support their
increased consciousness.  We will probably charge them a lot for those
programs, just to make it a sincere decision on their part.

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at oekonux.de
>

-- 
Alex
I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.- Socrates

Norie Huddle
noriehuddle at mac.com

-- 
Kevin Carson
Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
http://mutualist.blogspot.com
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html