[p2p-research] Historical anti-materialism

[Smári McCarthy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This coincides with my use of the term "social" or "collective" as an
antonym of "rival".

Rivalry is a very important of the p2p concept - rival goods cause
problems. http://smari.yaxic.org/rivalry_scarcity_graph.png

 - Smári

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkpAEv8ACgkQ9cJSn8kDvvEGjgCdFVozZKyrq7o58cMHar9PC2n8
24YAn2BGo3j34h+h3PHwn6SAzv0W/qth
=F/FH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----