[p2p-research] Historical anti-materialism

Tue Jun 23 04:10:07 CEST 2009

Michel,

I am increasingly of a mind that I am simply wrong.  These discussions are
necessary and are appropriate.  It was not what I had hoped for, but that is
the challenge and the joy of all group dynamics.

As an aside, I spent a long time arguing with Austrian economist inspired
people, so I think you have confused me with someone else.  Tie me to Keynes
in some way, yes.  Austrians...not so much.  I have read them.  I'm not a
great fan.

I think Stan is closer to the Austrians, but the law and economics crowd is
probably closer to what he is reading.  The two are often together so far as
I know.

I apologize to all for appearing bothered.  Tough times.  I sincerely regret
any ruffled feathers.

Ryan

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> By its very nature as an innovative social practice, p2p ideas attract
> those who want to change the status quo, both by constructing the new, and
> sometimes by criticising or attempting to destroy the old. These people as
> far as I can see, can come from various political horizons, and some may
> define themselves as neo-marxists.
>
> But who here does? where is the utopianism here?
>
> well, I can recognize different strands,
>
> - a kind of technological, post-scarcity, let's call it transhuman stance,
> that focuses on technological advances
>
> - a mutualist strand with people like Kevin or Dmytri, who are also very
> different in their approaches
>
> - people like Smari, who use the anarchist moniker
>
> - people from an oekonux background, like Christian, who are perhaps most
> explicitely linked to some kind of post-marxist tradition ...
>
> - monetary reformers, usually libertarian I would presume, who favour
> equitable more distributed markets
>
> - many people with practical ideas and projects who seek advice ...
>
> - social-democratic, participatory oriented activists, like Matt etc...
>
> - I wouldn't even try to try to pigeonhole people like Sepp and Vinay
>
> Even this is of course a simplification, many people now are
> post-ideological and combine various strands in varying ways ...
>
> One thing is also certain, far from being neo-Marxists, most people here
> are pro-enterpreneurial in some way or another ...
>
> Ryan, is influenced by Austrian  economists, I guess that would some kind
> of (post)-libertarian strand politically ..
>
> I see all these people discussing together, sometimes disagreeing,
> sometimes in rather stark terms ...
>
> Obviously something is bothering Ryan, is it the theoretical discussions?
>
> Should we separate the list in a p2p-theory list and a p2p-project list?
>
> I'm not in favour, since I see theory inextricably linked with practice,
> both as a guide to it, and as profoundly influenced by the experience of
> practice ...
>
>
> ...  but I just would like to float the idea, if that could relieve some of
> the obvious unhappiness with the direction of some debates ...
>
> Michel
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Stan,
>>
>> You are quite right that I confused rivalrous and excludable goods.  It
>> has been a long time since I read Rothbard and the Austrians who gave us
>> these ideas (I presume).
>>
>> The difference of course is largely irrelevant since property laws do
>> exist.
>>
>> I accept that data is possible to be replicated at negligible cost.  That
>> doesn't make the right to copy it inherently present.  And excludability is
>> everywhere we want it to be from viewsheds to air rights.
>>
>> In practical terms, I continue to believe the discussion of rivalrous
>> goods to be largely irrelevant.  If you want to talk about property law, you
>> are in national political systems.  What difference does it make if a good
>> can or can't be copied without loss of material?
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan, I have not seen those definitions of rivalry before, nor do I know
>>> of any literature that would support them.  Goods are, by nature, rival or
>>> nonrival.  You should have looked this up and fact-checked it.
>>>
>>> See the following economic papers:
>>> http://www.econ.upf.edu/~marimon/paulAER02whenIPs.pdf<http://www.econ.upf.edu/%7Emarimon/paulAER02whenIPs.pdf>
>>> http://www.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf
>>> http://www.maxey.info/documents/summary_economic_growth.doc
>>>
>>> Simply put, classifying a good as rival or nonrival depends upon whether
>>> consumption or use of the good prevents simultaneous
>>
>>
>>
>>> consumption or use of the good by another.  You are confusing
>>> excludability with rivalry.
>>>
>>> Information as a "good" is not rival, even if someone claims it private
>>> (they can claim whatever they like).  Information can be used with no
>>> rivalry.  Stallman was speaking of software.  Information--a subset being
>>> software--is very clearly a non-rival good by definition.
>>>
>>> As for my own perspective: the divide between unenforceable and untenable
>>> claims of rivalry, and the reality of information nonrivalry, underlies the
>>> losing battle of copyrighted media "piracy." Legally establishing nonrival
>>> goods as rival goods only creates more dissonance.  The term "intellectual
>>> property" attempts to beg the question by classifying information as both
>>> private property and rival, but information is no more rival property than
>>> "creation science" is science.  "Private" information not released in some
>>> way is still a nonrival good, but is being excluded.
>>>
>>> Your points about Stallman were scattered, and in my view, incorrect.
>>> The implicit lie about rivalry at the core of most "intellectual property"
>>> claims couldn't be more relevant to P2P.
>>>
>>> Property laws consider the rivalrous/nonrivalrous nature of a good when
>>> determining the entitlements they establish.  Any reading on the
>>> jurisprudence behind property rights, whether Romer or Epstein, consider
>>> both rivalry and excludability, among other important factors.
>>>
>>> -- Stan
>>>
>>> 2009/6/22 Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Rivalry is a very important of the p2p concept - rival goods cause
>>>>> problems. http://smari.yaxic.org/rivalry_scarcity_graph.png
>>>>>
>>>>>  - Smári
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Things are not, by nature, rival or non-rival goods.  Those are defined
>>>> by laws of property.  If you do not like the laws, work to change them.
>>>> However, there is no indepedent concept of rival versus non-rival goods
>>>> outside of a political system.
>>>>
>>>> Non-rival goods -- like ocean water classically -- can easily become
>>>> rival goods -- 200 mile territory limits.  The same is true of electrons
>>>> (electricity) air -- air rights.
>>>>
>>>> Property laws are set by lawyers and politicians.  P2P systems are
>>>> designed by those who freely choose to share their output and to pool into
>>>> commons--it could be any sort of system of scarce or non-scarce goods.
>>>>
>>>> To say rival goods cause problems is akin to saying cultures cause
>>>> problems.  There may be some hint of truth to it, but it is largely
>>>> irrelevant unless one wishes to radically alter a political system.  Nothing
>>>> in P2P requires altering any political system--P2P thrives just fine
>>>> regardless of when and where it is implemented.
>>>>
>>>> Ryan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090622/6ef72976/attachment.html>