[p2p-research] dialogue with parecon, response to Michael Albert

[Patrick Anderson]

> Michael Albert wrote:
>> But what about a group producing food, say, or violins, or
>> something else? On two counts it would seem to fail to meet your definition.
>> First, the products wouldn’t be for everyone, clearly. Second, the inputs
>> would be expensive, which implies permissions, acquisitions, etc.  Is this
>> correct?”

Michel Bauwens wrote:
> Yes, this is correct. Typically, as in the Arduino circuit boards, or your
> hypothetical violin, the violin would be a market product, exchanged for
> money, but the design would be available to all, so any other company would
> also be free to produce it. One of the side effects of this is to destroy
> monopoly rent on artificial scarcity.

Michel,

Are you saying Open Design is enough to "destroy monopoly rent on
artificial scarcity" in every respect?

In other words, for design that is already open (say heirloom
genetics), are Capitalists unable to impose any sort of artificial
scarcity whatsoever?

If so, then are you also saying that there is no 'trouble' in the
market for such goods - that P2P cannot or will-not address society's
scarcity of food (where genetics are not locked closed) and water (the
design of which (H2O) is not yet locked closed)?

Thanks,
Patrick