[p2p-research] Request: Peer to Peer and Human Evolution

Tue Feb 23 16:29:37 CET 2010

HI Peter,

I can agree with your GCD bullet points ...

if you see under the main page of the wiki, right column, there is room
there for personal projects, and you could start one up there,

Michel

2010/2/23 Mázsa Péter <peter.mazsa at gmail.com>

> 2010/2/22 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> >> > I'm still of two minds regarding internet taxation, but first hand, I
> >> > don't
> >> > see why internet companies should be excempted from contributing to
> the
> >> > public good.
> >> >
> >> > Of course, our communication should not be taxed.
> >> >
> >> not exempt at all: companies (our companies, run on the new
> >> jurisdictions) should pay taxes, but the tax-level and tax-composition
> >> should be set by tax-competition of the jurisdictions. This is why I
> >> expect that taxes for intangibles will be somewhere between
> >> https://www.paypal.com/fees and 5%. Not without predecessors:), e.g.
> >> http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/images/WM1628-chart1-lg.jpg
> >
> > do I understand you correctly that you are suggesting to pay moderate
> taxes
> > to non-state jurisdictions?, say like a tax that would go 'directly' to
> > musicians?
>
> 2010/2/23 Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com>:
> > As an anarchist, I can't say I'm in favor of taxation of any kind.
>
>
> @Michael yes: consumers of intangibles should have the opportunity (!
> @Kevin) to pay taxes (moderated by tax-competition) to online
> jurisdictions where they (as online-jurisdiction-citizens) have the
> opportunity to control online & constitutionally the outgoing of
> taxes.
>
>
> 2010/2/22 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> >> of course we are intended to contribute to the public good, but 1. we
> >> define public good through another form of participation/organization
> >> than the state 2. in a reasonable measure.
> >
> > I agree that the notion of the public good can be divorced from the
> notion
> > of the state; ;what matters to me is to recognize a sphere that is beyond
> > the interests of even p2p groups, i.e. the field in which we all operate;
> > from corporate experience, I do not believe in exclusive self-regulation
> and
> > pure private contractual agreements, contrary to thatcher, I do believe
> that
> > 'society really exists'
>
>
> I agree: I do not believe exclusive self-regulation either. But some
> people do. I think what we should stand for is the Greatest Common
> Divisor:
> - that we must create e-cash,
> - that we should have the opportunity to pay taxes and avoid double
> taxation by states,
> - that we should have the infrastructure to spend our taxes by means
> of our participation, and
> - that we should have an ethical basis in the form of a firm
> conception of sustainable creativity.
>
> We should find our allies, e.g.:
> http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/List_of_Hacker_Spaces
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
> who else?
> and make public that we have this Greatest Common Divisor as a
> strategy (we should find such kind of allies who accept this a a
> common strategy).
>
>
> 2010/2/23 Kevin Carson <free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com>:
> > OTOH, one of the benefits of the emerging network society is its
> > opacity to the state, and its ability to function outside the
> > regulatory framework that creates artificial scarcity.  I see a
> > darknet economy of networked, encrypted currency transactions, in
> > which patents and copyrights are ignored, and with its own
> > certification and authenticating mechanisms, as the basis for the
> > post-state society.
>
>
> yes; but I want to make it proud, with the opportunity to
> - sustain creativity, and
> - contribute to common causes.
>
>
> 2010/2/22 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>:
> >> > you are of course right that the state (and corporate) institutions
> are
> >> > largely unreformable, but intense pressure from successfull social
> >> > alternatives (p2p ones), can drive the change towards more
> participatory
> >> > government
> >>
> >> I completely agree with you: we want successful p2p alternatives and
> >> more participatory governments. So we have a common vision.
> >>
> >> What about the strategy? I think (and this, of course, is subjective)
> >> that the direct pressure on governments by however successful p2p
> >> exemplars is 1. quite provocative towards the states, while at the
> >> same time 2. not enough for significant change, or, at least, not
> >> enough for change in due time, because do not change the rule of the
> >> game.
> >
> > I think the issue is that there will be different interlocking time
> scales
> > at work; on the one hand there is the slow but steady buildup of
> alternative
> > p2p modalities by many actors, that are quite strong, but still emergent;
> on
> > the other hand, the possible dislocation of the current system (which in
> my
> > view is not a certainty, I believe we still have a half-kondratieff wave
> to
> > go before the collapse), or at the very least the current imbalances
> after
> > the meltdown, will create the basis for social unrest; what is important
> is
> > that factor 1, can keep enough pace with factor 2, so that social forces
> can
> > see a believable alternative; but one and two can work in concert, I
> believe
> > peer production can ally itself with the forces for active political and
> > social change; they both need each other
>
>
> We think the same about what we should do, we differ in what we dare to
> hope
>
>
> >> What we need is more what you characterize as the "dissociation of
> >> markets" from the states.
> >
> > what I really want is different commons, different markets, different
> state
> > approaches ... I think unregulated corporate markets are dangerous, as we
> > have seen in 2008; and I don't see how you can have different markets
> > without also tackling the state issue (i.e. smarter regulation,
> > participatory policy making)
>
> Yes!!:)
>
> >> I think we are at the corner of an Edgeworth box
> >> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/figs/Box/box.html of
> >> the states and the p2p orgs: we are at equilibrium with them, but
> >> states & their corporations endowed immensely compared to p2ps. If we
> >> follow the rules of the states, we can move towards the center of the
> >> box merely infinitesimally. If we want to shift the proportions of
> >> production significantly, we should reallocate the factors and/or
> >> endowments, i.e., in case of states, the taxes. Of course, states
> >> won't be nice to us, but at the end of the day(?:), a more balanced
> >> equilibrium will work out, in the near of the center of the box.
> >
> > I think the 'meanness' of states depend on many factors; why was jesus
> > killed but not the buddha? two radical messages, but one was not
> perceived
> > as a threat .. I think smart p2p projects can position themselves not as
> > enemies of states and markets, but as hyperproductive solutions to
> difficult
> > problems, in such a way that the temptation to 'meanness' can be avoided
> to
> > the maximum
>
>
> give it a try:)
>
>
> > I agree that new tax practices and tax hacks are necessary .. perhaps we
> > could find a term akin to monetary transformation, that shows the
> necessity
> > for radical new approaches to taxation?
> >
> >> Wiki: very good idea, i'd like to participate:) What about the label
> >> '/taxhack' for the wiki? As for your main topic, commons would be 1 of
> >> the 3 main strategic areas:
> >> - infrastructure for e-cash and taxation (of transactions, probably)
> >> (Vision: autonomous monetary system)
> >> - infrastructure for participation (Vision: online political units
> >> worthy of our love and loyalty)
> >> - general theory of commons and rewards (Vision: maximum sustainable
> >> creativity)
> >>  What do you think?
> >
> > the form it takes in the mediawiki is Category:Taxation, but this can be
> > disguised behind a more popular meme .. I'm  not so fond of taxhacks but
> if
> > we find nothing better, it will have to do <g>; fine also to treat the 3
> > different aspects
>
>
> I think labeling is important. I'm not sure about this '/taxhack' as
> well, but it should be
> - striking and
> - not a category but a project/program.
>
> Peter
>

-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100223/09ed053f/attachment.html>