[p2p-research] Repurposing Profit for User Freedom

[Ryan Lanham]

On 2/5/10, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am completely not opposed to communal property.  I am a greater advocate
> for it than any socialist.  I am for free participation in open and
> voluntary systems.  I am for co-ops.  I advocate for them regularly.  I have
> worked for one.  Co-ops do have a great record.  They work well.  But you
> must not be forced to join a co-op.  At that point they become the failed
> past.  Coercion is everything.  If you coerce, you destroy incentive.  The
> incentive must be to share and be communal.  If you force it, you destroy
> it.
>


As to the specifics of "communal," it is clearly a word meant to invoke
utopian socialist pasts.  If you say commons...a much better term...I am in
full agreement.  Commons are trusts...perpetual trusts.  Communal property
implies something that is group available without governance or protection.
I am indeed against that and find the very idea of it nonsensical.  In my
own mind (if no one else's) that is completey consistent.

In a nutshell: voluntary, protected IP, state accepted, [consensus] human
rights protective.

And not...  Coerced, free-for-all, state ignoring and community defining of
appropriate human rights.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100205/f91fdd49/attachment.html>