[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

[Paul D. Fernhout]

How about a basic tenet of p2p should be to avoid the creation and 
enforcement of artificial scarcity? And digital goods or ideas with now 
effectively no significant reproduction costs are the first example?

Even if current real scarcity may need to be managed somehow, again perhaps 
by p2p methods or others (a market and a basic income of ration units, etc.)?

Perhaps this also helps address the issue Michel points out about diversity 
of approaches. To enforce artificial scarcity by the state is much uglier 
and harder to justify than enforcing some rules about managing real 
scarcity. Yet, more and more of what the state does is enforce ideas about 
artificial scarcity (the drug war, copyrights and patents, laws about what 
consenting adults can do in the bedroom, giving money to bankers, etc.)

But, that's a social libertarian position -- that the state should not be 
poking its nose into lots of things. Still, a redistributive (basic income) 
aspect of such an approach would not be propertarian libertarian, which 
tends to worship the market, although it would be more libertarian socialist.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propertarian
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

But, I can see that codifying things in that direction would be alienating 
to many enmeshed in the current systems. And it might also not be accurate 
enough. Again, Manuel de Landa:
   http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm
"Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into villains 
and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they are constantly 
turning into one another, but because in real life we find only mixtures and 
hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be established through theory 
alone but demand concrete experimentation."

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> I'd put it this way:
> 
> P2P systems attempt to function with minimal centralization and complexity
> so as to reduce governance organs, elite associations or exclusive licensing
> in favor of personal interactions.  Sharing is prioritized over personal
> gain as a basic ethos.  Other basic ethical tenets include avoidance of
> exploitation of the environment, labor or commons for self-gain.
> 
> P2P frameworks avoid religious, political or cultural norms that do not
> specifically advance the interests of the commons.  Where such norms come
> into conflict with thhe commons, those who hold to a P2P ethos favor the
> commons first and their own belief systems subsequently.
> 
> Thus, P2P is inherently social, but it makes no demands on the ethic of the
> individual to share by force.  Instead, it seeks to establish strong
> normative rules for participation and sharing with minimal use of central
> governance or power to achieve normative aims.
> 
> 
> 
> I would add that to me that sounds like an unworkable utopian philosophy.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I think p2p worldview is a route to solving problems of existence by
>>> recognizing that you can gain now by all gaining now (as opposed to in
>>> the future, or afterlife, etc). This in turn starts to create an
>>> environment where people who are more "self"-oriented can operate in
>>> their own so-called "selfish" interests, yet their actions will not
>>> tend to be at the expense of others.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It sounds remarkably like the writings of Adam Smith.
>>
>> Ryan