[p2p-research] Historical anti-materialism

[Stan Rhodes]

Ryan, concerning rivalry:

Thank you for noting your error, which I consider a rare and noble action.
I don't know where the specific terms related to rivalry came from (I'm sure
they predate Austrians), but I encountered them when reading the
jurisprudence underlying "intellectual property."

Both the nature of a good, and the technologies currently involving it, are
clear inputs for reasoning about property rights, law, governance, and
socioeconomics.  Investigating the roots of modern IP law takes us to an
economic argument, and assessing that argument carries significant
implications for future laws or principles in any number of national and
non-national contractual agreements and legal systems, including p2p
structures.  Lowering barriers to entry created by IP law also increase the
possibility of p2p production for information goods--another relevant topic.

Concerning Austrians and my current viewpoint:

I'm not of the Austrian school, nor any economic school, and I'm surprised
(truly, literally surprised) anything I've said seems close to the Austrian
school. I have read very little Austrian literature, because their
foundational approach of "praxeology" seems like pseudo-deduction, so I see
no usefulness in it.  While Austrians may have a strong--or at least,
vocal--presence on the internet, I don't find they or their perspectives
appear much in the literature I read.  I suspect Austrian perspectives are
absent because they eschew science.

If I'm to be labeled anything, label me a cross-discipline behavioral
scientist.

Concerning p2p research:

The problem with p2p research is the problem with just about everything
involving discourse intended to explore or solve problems: our tendency to
search for or interpret new information that confirms our preconceptions,
and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations of information
that contradict our prior beliefs.  Association is the default, and rational
discourse does not exist as a norm, but as a hard struggle, always uphill.
The more a person is focused on defeating or championing a side--rather than
exploring an issue, or focusing on solving a problem--the more "rational"
arguments are just rationalized backfill from an ideological position.

When someone presents and argument and makes claims, they should be able to
informally qualify their premises and priors.  They should want to show
their weak spots so that they can be sure their argument is valid, and not
just strong rhetorically, or the song the choir wants to hear.  This sort of
rational exploration requires fair play, because otherwise, a person will be
rhetorically taken advantage of in discussion by those with hardened
ideologies.

Political uses of terms and technical terms (Marxism, capitalism) are too
often equivocated.  Whereas the concept of an "apple" is pretty clear, the
concept of "capitalism" is nearly meaningless--at best, a beast of
smoke--unless someone like Dmytri Kleiner submits his technical definition
for consideration. Conversations started without confirming terms tend to
become (smoky) wild-goose chases.

-- Stan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090629/71eb3fb1/attachment.html>