[p2p-research] User Freedom and the Purpose of Profit

[Patrick Anderson]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> I would like to be able to buy one apple of a certain variety,
> to see if I like it, without having to buy into the farm.
>

Prices are not set artificially within this system, they are set by
"the market" just the same as in Capitalism.

There are some very good reasons to do this:

1.) Growth can only occur if more value is collected that the current
costs of operation.  If we do not collect profit, then we will never
have any extra funds needed to include more people under our
protection.

2.) Profit will be collected by *someone*, so it may as well be *us*,
for then we can treat it 'correctly'.  If we do not collect profit (if
we sell all products "at cost"), then some customers will buy-up all
of that product (say apples), and then re-sell them closer to the
current market price.


So when you buy such an apple, you will most likely pay profit, just
as you do when you buy from a grocery store.

You will receive a paper or electronic receipt at the point-of-sale
that shows the amount you overpaid.

This is also a legal title to your portion of that co-owned property.
It may be more accurate to call it a bond, since the current owners
have not yet even purchased that property.

You could leave the receipt on the table, but since you already paid
profit, you have already bought into the farm.

These receipts can be traded, and so are valuable even if you decide
you don't like object you bought.

More completely, each of these receipts can also act one-half of an
'insuring' currency.  The other half of the currency is filled when
workers promise to perform future labor within some window of time
against those physical sources.

When both halves of such a note are 'filled' - when you have
sufficient ownership in apple trees, all supporting physical sources,
and have commitments from workers skilled in taking care of those
trees, harvesting the fruit, and preserving and storing, etc. - then
you are literally insured (imperfectly) against going without that
specific objective.