[p2p-research] Historical anti-materialism

[Ryan Lanham]

Stan,

By definition, any private good is a rival good.  A non-rival good is, by
definition, public and non-material.  What is material is not always clear,
but ideas even if written down are probably always non-material.  However,
some public, non-material goods can be rival goods as is well understood.

A public idea can never be a rival good.  Writers produce so-called public
ideas.  Any code is a rival good if someone says it is private.  Rival and
private are very nearly synonyms in intellectual property.

Frankly, I'm not sure what rival and non-rival--basic microeconomic
ideas--has to do with anything.

Stallman is a good if ill man.  He is quite capable of nihilism and I have
been in the room when he spews it.  But my point was not about Stallman.  My
point was about absurdity and the anti-market tedium that really, to my
mind, has nothing whatsoever to do with P2P.

Ryan


On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:

> Ryan, I can't find much to agree with in the email thread, but wanted to
> comment regarding Stallman:
>
> First, Stallman usually does not comment on "intellectual property" outside
> of software patents and copyright.  On occasion he makes general statements,
> but we should consider his perspectives about other areas "loose," while his
> perspectives on software are quite focused.
>
> Second, this statement is unclear, if not incorrect: "He suggests that
> anyone should be able to be paid so long as the borders and boundaries they
> create are not destructive."  In this context "should be able to be paid"
> suggests some sort of obligation others have to the creator, or idealistic
> scenario.  Stallman says nothing about being "able to be paid," only asking
> to be paid, wanting to be paid, and wanting to maximize income; an important
> distinction.  Again, this is within the explicit context of programming.
>
> Third, since Stallman's statement was offered in the context of
> programming, your statements about rival goods and services such as
> universities, eating and sleeping, and so on, are outside the scope of his
> comment.
>
> Fourth, Stallman's software philosophy is fairly simple and consistent:
> people should be free to share and use software.  Since others disagree, and
> possess the legal means to exclude, Stallman created a legal wrapper to
> apply his philosophy to all software he writes by securing the freedom to
> use and share that software.  He strongly encourages everyone to consider
> his philosophy of software freedom, and use the legal tools created to
> secure that freedom, whether user or programmer.
>
> To accuse Stallman of "nihilism" should be a huge red flag indicating
> hyperbole.  Stallman is the father of P2P software production, with very
> clear and outspoken P2P values of voluntary contribution and software
> commons-safeguarding.  He put his labor where his mouth was, and continues
> to do so, with significant results.
>
> -- Stan
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  Stallman also wrote the following before them...
>> **
>>
>> *“Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?”
>> *
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize
>> one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But
>> the means customary in the field of software today are based on destruction.
>>
>> Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is
>> destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the
>> program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives
>> from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful
>> consequences are deliberate destruction.
>> The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become
>> wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the
>> mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule. Since I
>> do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards information, I
>> am required to consider it wrong for one to do so. Specifically, the desire
>> to be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in
>> general of all or part of that creativity.
>>
>> _____
>>
>> He suggests that anyone should be able to be paid so long as the borders
>> and boundaries they create are not destructive.  But then isn't all
>> admissions to universities destructive by such logic?  Isn't any barrier to
>> any given use by anyone destructive in the same thread?  Shouldn't we all be
>> able to sleep where we want and eat whatever is grown?  If maximum use is
>> the criteria of value, then any restriction on any property is
>> absurd--intellectual or not.  Surely professors don't own their research
>> notes, their journal articles, their books or their lectures.  And the idea
>> of security on all machines should be given over to simply a write-only
>> problem--everything everywhere should be readable so that it can be used!
>> And no one need cite another author because that limits value!
>>
>> Aren't all books and journals that are not open to any publication or
>> viewing destructive?  Isn't the failure to share any thought or idea that
>> might have value to anyone a failure by such standards?  Stallman's writing
>> suggests the absence of intellectual property--not the freedom to share.
>>
>> Once again, nihilism and fantasy instead of logic, responsibility and
>> sharing.  P2P deserves better.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090622/348fb3da/attachment-0001.html>