[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

[Ryan Lanham]

I suppose it is new.  I try to say it as influenced by the flow of
conversations here...which even when I reject items in somewhat summary
form, I listen to. I think the challenge of such writing is to say the most
without giving people specific items from which they can reject the whole.

I am particularly agitated of late by anarchist lines. That tells me I see
some truth in their arguments though I am inclined to reject them
summarily.  The portion of libertarianism that draws me is the ideal of
limited governance and autonomy.  In the long run, I doubt it works.  Either
way, it is an education problem and there is still policing to be done.  But
that is an example where I think we need to understand what is compelling
about arguments like Kevin, Smari, etc. make and which I respect as
legitimate if contra to my own views.

Learning for me entails constantly brushing with things I think I reject and
seeing what I can adapt and adopt.  It is my own approach to collaboration,
I guess.  I used to feel very similarly toward libertarians and toward
corporate capitalism.  I see value in each of these now...though I still
reject the basic tenets behind them.

A long way of saying, I don't reference my old stuff...a dangerous trait for
those who wish not to get caught in being inconsistent.

Ryan

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Ryan, is this your old list, or something new?
>
> Michel
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>  On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I think that there should definitely a set of conditions for a strong and
>>> real commons; and an expanded version for a weaker version, but both should
>>> have clear boundary conditions.
>>>
>>> In my view, it should be clearly restricted to common property, and not
>>> public property like libraries.
>>>
>>>
>> I think the key boundaries are as follows:
>>
>> 1. A P2P Commons attempt to maximize free, voluntary and open sharing of
>> assets that are engaged in the commons.
>> 2. Assets placed in the commons are irrevocably there and cannot be
>> removed for personal gains. Ongoing participation in a commons implies
>> shared responsibility for its sustaining expenses.  When a commons cannot be
>> sustained, it is dissolved so as to maximize reuse and sharing of its prior
>> assets without cost or selfish limitations.
>>
>> 3. P2P (though not necessarily a commons) emphasizes reduced hierarchical
>> control and greater autonomy of the individual. The role of parties, states,
>> churches, co-ops, corporations, shareholding owners and other collective
>> action bodies is intentionally minimized in any form of governance of the
>> commons.
>>
>> Secondary boundaries (many may reject these in individual terms and still
>> claim status as a P2P commons):
>>
>> a. Commons work to avoid free riding by encouraging valid and useful
>> contributions to the commons as a sustainable process.
>> b. P2P commons work to minimize governance interventions.
>> c. Commons work to provide useful and valuable tools, assets and services
>> to participants.
>> d. Commons reject inputs and uses that are applied for gains that are not
>> sustainable or that adversely impact the environment.
>> e. Commons apply open, fair and recognizably democratic means to govern
>> themselves.
>> f. Commons are not owned by a state.  They are created out of voluntary
>> participation mechanisms where users and participants continually and freely
>> choose to participate and the right to exit from participation and support
>> clearly exists.
>> g. Commons are not a part of or party to any form of capitalism,
>> communism, anarchism or socialism as a political ideal and may be compatible
>> with any form of government that allows voluntary and free participation in
>> protected sharing schemes that are self-governing within reasonably
>> constraints (e.g. valid safety or environmental regulations).
>> h. P2P commons reject the idea of a single controller, a controller or
>> governor for life, or any mode of control or ownership of the commons that
>> positions one person or one group as a vanguard, protector, trustee or
>> governor acting beyond reasonable terms of a few years and freely chosen by
>> participating members.  Organizers and social entrepreneurs who start
>> commons with benign intent and who have imbued a commons with their own
>> personal will have greater latitude under this criterion so long as their
>> actions are reasonably consistent with the long-term goals and boundaries of
>> commons.
>> i. Commons are perpetual and may not be privatized.
>> j. Commons work toward ideals of general public good even if the public
>> good is at odds with most members of the commons.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>


-- 
Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
Cayman Islands
(345) 916-1712
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100225/c224cae1/attachment.html>