[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

[Ryan Lanham]

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Complex systems possess scalar dimensions, too. Living systems tend to
> adapt/evolve to sense and perceive different dimensions and parts of
> those scales. It is true that there are no real "boundaries" across
> those scales. Alex is right. This is an important question, Alex,
> thanks for raising it.
>
>
This is very well put.  I concur.



> This is discussed starting a few decades ago in "hierarchy theory" (
> see http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm ) and you can trace it forward
> into Complex Systems theory from there.
>
> The management of a commons at least works if there are conceptual
> boundaries in the minds of participants. This is well documented in
> the work of Ostrum. If participants *understand* how to participate
> *without* conceptual boundaries related to any resource, then I can
> imagine it is plausible they can still successfully co-manage it. (For
> instance, if they instead focus on the identifiable things that are
> connected in a plurality of ways.)
>

A great deal of Ostrom's early research focused on what I would call
co-operatives rather than commons.  But I agree.  And the similarities are
greater than the differences.


>
> My question is this: are there any real world examples that anyone can
> offer to date where people did not create conceptual boundaries around
> resources, whether to co-manage and share, or exploit them?
>
>
Certainly in pre-modern cultures--native Americans, first Australians, etc.
one would find these things.  It is not a useful example in most cases in my
view.  In modern terms, I think the best example would be sea-based
resources.  It is of interest to me because many of the best global
locations for OTEC are beyond territorial waters.  Laws of the sea apply.
These areas are also of interest to seasteading folks--mostly pretty sharp
libertarians.


> Would people be able to more effectively participate in a commons if
> the map more closely resembles the territory? (shifting and changing
> on all scales over time)
>

Since laws tend to follow states, and states have boundaries, and commons
are organized under laws, this seems inevitable.  The real question, as
Michel and I were going back and forth on a few days ago, is whether a
commons is "protected." That protection would tend to emanate from the rule
of law...states, etc.



>
> The tools that we as Forward Foundation are creating and deploying now
> in food, energy and manufacturing systems, do indeed assume that the
> picture is more effective if it is changeable over time.
>
> For participants, we do not map "roles".  Instead we focus on actions
> and activities. Resources are mapped as subtractable, and
> non-subtractable (instead of who owns the resource). There's more to
> this, and we'll be publishing about it, plus releasing F/LOS software
> that does this soon.
>

There are analogies in accounting to activity-based costing in manufacturing
operations you may want to have a look at.  But it seems even with your
model a person has an account.  The value in the account must be set somehow
by contribution, time, etc. for additions or subtractions to be made.
Otherwise how does one limit free-riding?  So even without organizational
roles qua systems theory, you still end up with producers and consumers and
means of analyzing who is who.



>
>
> More replies below this exchange:
>
> >>
> >> I have been struggling with a sort of 'exploratory view' of an operation
> >> that works in tandem with a Commons, asking the question 'how does this
> >> operation touch the Commons?'  The idea is to help people find useful
> >> operations that they can undertake that work in league with the idea of
> >> re-enclosing, creating, or generally growing the Commons with some
> >> self-interest in mind.  Think bike fleets, housing, or food cultivation.
> >> Following this, it seems that because a view of a Commons as a system is
> >> useful, and because there are any number of processes happening within
> that
> >> Commons, that the boundary conditions would refer specifically to the
> ...
> >> endpoints ... the edges of relevance, on vectors or processes, with
> regards
> >> to the Commons in question.
> >
> > I see where you are going, I think.  I don't have any quibbles with it.
> If
> > you want the definition of commons (for you) to be more open to
> conventional
> > organizational aspects (e.g. having sales, dealing with scarcity ideas,
> > etc.) I am with you.  Others have different views.  Consensus is always
> > messy stuff.  Without it though, we end up creating even more arbitrary
> and
> > over-stated boundaries.
> >
> >>
> >> I understand where the idea for these conditions came from.  I think
> they
> >> are much better called P2P operation conditions, and that they are
> >> operational, normative guidelines for P2P operations, as opposed to a
> >> definitive set of conditions for bounding a Commons, whether that
> Commons is
> >> P2P or not.
> >
> > Again, I agree.  That's where I started last April..and what Michel just
> put
> > up on Facebook...a set of normative guidelines.  Those are harder in a
> sense
> > than organizational theory guidelines.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The Commons definition/description page on the wiki seems to go at
> length
> >> in an effort to walk around and nail down the general, global, if not
> >> completely non-local idea of the Commons, and doesn't get into the sort
> of
> >> detail we are discussing with regards to the 'qualities' of the
> operation of
> >> a commons, from a P2P perspective or otherwise.
> >> http://p2pfoundation.net/Commons#Definition
> >> I am attempting to contextualize some criticism here, hopefully in a way
> >> that will allow me to do something useful on the wiki with regards to
> this
> >> information.  Where does it all go!
> >> So, to #1
> >> 1. A P2P Commons attempts to maximize free, voluntary and open sharing
> of
> >> assets that are engaged in the commons.
> >> How about
> >> "A Commons can be, and in some cases is, best managed using a P2P ethos
> >> and principles.  See: Managing a Commons with P2P (link)
> >> Since half the things you list are the specific P2P principles used in
> >> application of the 'how' of Commons governance, I think they would go on
> >> that page.  Some of what you are saying is about what a Commons IS.  I
> know
> >> you are really into property rights and state enforcement on some level,
> so,
> >> to say that somewhere in there would be helpful.  I think it's funny
> that
> >> you say that a Commons is all these things, and yet there is no single
> state
> >> institution that I am aware of that cannot be corrupted in some way
> shape or
> >> form that insures perpetuity, so your definitions of what a Commons "IS"
> >> make every Commons besides "Universe" not a Commons.  I'm not picking
> holes
> >> in this so much as to say that I appreciate your attempts to offer a
> rather
> >> large perspective on Commons, P2P, management, ownership, and a whole
> lot of
> >> other things, and I think that teasing them apart would be helpful,
> >> especially since you (and others) have put quite a bit into the
> principles
> >> page.
> >> Wouldn't it be cool to have a page about the specifics of a Commons in a
> >> P2P context?  I think the idea that there's a P2P context also pries
> apart
> >> the idea of the Commons in some useful way that might help us be more
> >> specific, brief, and clear on the Commons definition page, too!
> >> A
> >
> > I think commons and P2P are separate, distinct and yet intertwined.  I
> don't
> > think one is a superset and the other a subset.  P2P is about governance
> to
> > a large degree.  Commons is about purpose or mode of function.  Of
> course,
> > purpose relates to governance and vice versa.  I think we need to engage
> on
> > both personally and to find out what the theories are.  P2P is
> harder...and
> > commons is already problematic and hard.  Combining them is messy.
> >
> > How do we proceed when things are intertwined but different...like brain
> > cells and ideas?  In a sense we deal with them as different levels of
> > network protocols...I used to use the OSI 7 layer open systems protocol
> > models a lot.  It reminds me of those. At one level you are talking a
> > physical link with physical connections.  At another you might have a
> > transport protocol.  P2P and commons are analogous.  Something is going
> on
> > with different protocols at each level.  In biology, you might have
> > electro-chemical protocols which are obviously different but related to
> > psycho-social realities and protocols...built on (?)...but
> different...used
> > to differing ends and in different ways.  I'm not sure one reductionist
> or
> > analytical model gets you to the best or most efficient understanding.
> >
> > It's hard to get a handle really.  Organizational theory is
> similar...many
> > modes of looking at one firm...systematic, institutional, etc. We can
> have
> > ten maps of California that are better than combining them into one map.
> > Still, we need a geography of the commons and of P2P.
> >
> > Ryan
> >
>
>
>
>
> I personally define "P2P" to mean this:
>
>
> On the scale of an individual person: this person has full access to,
> and control over who, what, when, why and how they participate.
>
> However, there are limits to what that person can do as an individual
> with this access. Inevitably, that person, no matter *what* their
> fundamental assumptions about solving problems of existence may be,
> discovers they *must* connect in some ways *with* other people to
> sustain any advantage they gain from this access and control.
>
> What do you all think about that?
>
> (Please refrain from replying to me off list. Your replies of any type
> are more useful to everyone in public. Thanks.)
>
>
I would first note the irony (given the topic) of your last line.

With regard to your definition, the first sentence is inherently not P2P, so
it is a constraint on P2P.  It seems odd to lead with it.  Overall, your
definition could describe a market economy, or am I reading it wrong?

I then struggle with how you mean "inevitably" as if it is a given.  P2P is
voluntary.  What part is inevitable and why?

I would myself argue that p2p has to start with some notion of what
constitutes a peer.  Most of it is acknowledgment of the rights and
privileges of that counter-party.

I don't mean to be excessively critical, but simply trying to be clear in
critique.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100227/56447c3e/attachment.html>