[p2p-research] Repurposing Profit for User Freedom

[Patrick Anderson]

Samuel Rose wrote:
> One problem in the real world is that of trust. How do project
> participants know they are not pre-purchasing "vaporware"?


Yes, this is a problem for any small organization...


We *should* control the sources of our needs -
the land, water, organisms, tools and storage.

But we leave it up to Capitalists who hold it against us.
They keep Price above Cost and Sources locked shut.


One way to control is to co-own it ourselves.
We can invest for ourselves by buying the sources.

Once we own sources, even without those skills,
we will have full control and pay much lower bills.

An owner of a tree doesn't pay profit for fruit.
He pays all costs, but owns the objects already.

We can add new conditions to any property we co-own.
We can prevent Objects being separated from Sources.


One way to lock-open the sources we need in our plight.
is to use property rights as the GNU GPL uses Copyright.

We'll become property owners, but then tie our own hands.
By treating profit as a payer's own funding mechanism.

....

Personal ownership is important.
We each need some privacy.

But Co-Ownership is important too.
Let's share fields and factories.

Co-Ownership is one way to hold physical sources.
Access to these is required to control our objectives.

Co-Ownership is complicated but it's not impossible.
It is what the Capitalists are doing against us already!

But they do it wrong when they treat profit as reward.
Because this incents scarcity, destruction, even war.

....

The owner of sources owns the objects too.
He is in control in a way that is good.

But that goodness turns sour when he uses that control
to stop new users from gaining freedom of their own.

It is not clear he stops freedom when our usual stance,
is that profit is reward for those who were there first.

But profit measures consumer dependence and scarcity.
It is the inverse of competition, it measures monopoly.

Monopoly is not perfect, but neither is competition,
until each consumer has sufficient source ownership.

Current owners have an upper-hand because they organized.
This is good to a degree, but they take it too far.

It important each person have sufficient property -
both private and public - to fulfill basic needs.

....

So organizing can be good, because we can then share skills.
But it is also dangerous because we do not know how to scale.

As Capitalism grows, control is concentrated.
Consumers pay for growth, but are not compensated.

Paying price above cost is a plea for control.
We can use that payment to increase our girth.

The payers of profit will fund our expansion
As he accepts co-ownership under our demands.

These demands are a Terms of Operation
Meant to keep Users free of subjugation.

By treating profit paid as investment made,
Each and every user is incrementally freed.

Profit is a sort of coerced pre-payment.
Made by those with insufficient source ownership.

....


Profit is needed to fund grow.
But we must remember who pays.

A payer becomes investor when he pays more than cost.
But that profit is used to reward those already in charge.

So the payer gains nothing, even though he in need.
While the current owners accumulates more through ignorant greed.

The payer of profit in Capitalism doesn't become the owner of those
new Physical Sources he funded, but is instead left in the cold as
though his contribution meant nothing!

In a better society, you will slowly gain ownership
in real Physical Sources whenever you overpay.

We will each co-own enough surface area, water rights, grain seed,
kitchen (restaurant), grinders, mixers, kneaders, ovens,  knives,

Until you will eventually not buy bread,
for, as Source Owner, you own it already!



Samuel Rose wrote:
> In the case of what I am talking about, if all of these people pool
> and pre-purchase materials, while sharing the IP, there is really
> nothing for them to "own" (there is no company or entity which they
> are buying into).


I am talking exclusively about material assets - what I call Physical
Sources such as land, buildings, water-rights, computers, plants,
animals, tools, etc.



>> treat that overpayment as though the consumer were
>> making a tiny investment - so he slowly gains ownership in the Means
>> of Production for the purpose of solidifying his ability to receive
>> product "at cost" while also helping him gain the control he needs to
>> finally be able to claim "User Freedom" in the physical realm.

> I suppose that in your model, the material suppliers would have to
> agree to sell partial ownership in their companies with every purchase
> by open manufacturing project participants, etc.

No, they would only sell what they might want to get rid of.

The profit paid by consumers wouldn't buy-up the *current* assets
(unless for sale), but would be used to make *new* investments - such
as opening another restaurant or buying another roto-tiller or another
computer, etc.


> But since those
> supplier companies likely won't do it, and there may be no other
> useful supplier, I don't see how to fully exercise your model in the
> real world in the context of open manufacturing. Maybe you can help me
> understand?


No, the supplier is not required to sell any part of their own business.
But they may be ignored as we "go around" them seeking User Freedom.


For example:

Let's say we begin the "User Freedom Cafe".

Let's also say we were able to organize enough pre-paying customers
that the entire corporation is user-owned.

Now, when a potential customer arrives that has insufficient ownership,
we will sell him a meal too, but will charge a price above cost (profit).

We *do* collect profit from him, but use that overpayment to invest *for*
him.  So if he paid $5 for a hamburger that only cost us $3.75 to deliver,
Then we would be investing that $1.25 by purchasing wheat fields (for
the bun), tomato fields (tomatoes and ketchup), spice fields, beef cattle,
etc. and all the tools and wages needed to turn those sources into future
products - so he incrementally gains ownership to such a degree that he
finally co-owns enough of the entire tree of production for that product
that he has maximized control and minimumized price (price will reach cost).



Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com