[p2p-research] Authority, Representation and Secession in a P2P Network

[Samuel Rose]

Patrick,

The first question that comes to mind is:

How do we then *begin* co-ownership of physical resources? Where do we
start? Do we all pitch in money to by hosting?  Does it count if we
are merely leasing a server? Must awe actually fully own the hardware
and network connections? Where will we draw the line?

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can the concepts of authority and representation be
> used within a network that claims to be Peer2Peer?
>
> Is it realistic to give *everyone* 'root' access to a shared resource?
>
> Is it realistic to give *everyone* the keys to our community center?
>
> There seems to be a need for gate-keeping - especially when
> protecting ourselves from 'outsiders' that are not yet trusted.
>
> But even within a trusted circle, is there a level of scale when
> representation *must* come into play?
>
> This seems a valid question considering the failure of
> current 'authorities' and 'representatives' to achieve the
> goals of those they supposedly serve.
>
> But it also seems difficult to answer given the chaos
> that might ensue if there were no 'levels' of access to ...
> I'm not sure yet what needs to be constrained...
>
> I wonder if part of it may be the need to "slow down" the
> deliberation of change so we can discover what all other
> co-owners want in each case.
>
> But does such deliberation require 'representation' and
> levels of 'authority', or could it be done in some other way?
>
> If giving everyone 'root' access is wrong, maybe giving
> any one person 'root' access is also wrong?
>
> Is that why we tend toward *groups* of representatives?
>
> But even in that case we fail to achieve freedom because
> those committees almost invariably make decisions and
> enact policy that suffers from the problem of "Tyranny
> of the Majority" because there is not an easy way for
> individuals and minority sub-groups to secede from the
> majority without loosing all of their investments.
>
> It is said these minorities have the "Right to Leave", but
> that is not sufficient because they then relinquish all the
> value they have added.
>
> I think part of the solution lies in discovering a way for
> these non-majority groups to 'split' or 'fork' those physical
> resources during such conflicts.  But that pre-supposes
> they had real ownership to begin with - which is usually
> not the case, so real co-ownership may be a pre-condition
> to sharing physical resources in a P2P manner.
>
> * Notice even things you may not think of as 'physical' -
> such as a wiki - really *are* because of the equipment
> needed to 'host' that activity.
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
--
Sam Rose
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://forwardfound.org
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org
http://p2pfoundation.net

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan