[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

[Ryan Lanham]

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 3:50 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> exactly Patrick, this means that, barring more precise definitions, P2P
> Commons are indeed limited to a specific type of commons, where this is
> possible, but there can be many other commons, like the ones that need to
> restrict access and usage.
>
> I can imagine a category of peer-informed commons, where despite the need
> for access control, equipotential value is respected
>
> Michel
>
>
>

I was going to write almost the exact same this that Michel did.  I'm not
sure even for non-P2P commons that inclusion of items or materials that are
non renewable is a good model.  Land, natural resources, etc. are fine.
Ovens, tractors, etc. really more co-ops or communes.  A commons isn't a
commune.  The point of a commune is community ownership.

You can't put your sweater into a commons.  It is a limited resource.  At
some point, if a resource cannot be allocated to all who desire it in some
equitable and reasonable way, then hierarchical governance is necessary.  I
agree that P2P may be a new thing because technology has changed...or if
Michel is not saying that, I am.

That said, old items such as forests or fishing stocks can be fit into the
model (of commons...maybe even P2P commons) reasonably.

Said another way, P2P isn't about scarce non-renewable capital in a
manufacturing input sense.

Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100226/4d4f209c/attachment.html>