[p2p-research] The problems of debt

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

Would you/one still donate to free riders , in a system where you can
visualize free riders based on contributions that can be accredited by
receiving and donating ends, when your objective is to enable intentional
interdependency ?

The old Debt to intention ( its name might sound misleading )
"brainstorming" I was thinking about some time ago:

http://cashwiki.org/en/Debt_to_Intention

<http://cashwiki.org/en/Debt_to_Intention>an "update"

http://cashwiki.org/en/A_Financial_Programming_Language

<http://cashwiki.org/en/A_Financial_Programming_Language>some list where I
tend to send some related conversations :

http://groups.google.com/group/econowmix

I realize these are potential architectures for "languages" for a "self
defining network of operating systems",
and realize that the people that I know that seem to be closest to such
understanding are Sam Rose and some other people he works with via Forward
Foundation,

and then some other people such as Art Brock and co , revolving around
Metacurrency ( although I do not believe that all people relating themselves
to metacurrency share the same kind of understanding )



On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> If I could find a world where people are responsive to demand, but
> committed to share, I'd be very happy.  On the one hand I find capitalists
> who espouse selfishness.  On the other, I find socialists who are usually
> free riders.  Utopian artisan colonies probably have come closest.
> Universities are vaguely workable...though, of late, free riding has become
> dominant.  As soon as I hear that people don't concern themselves with value
> creation, I start walking for the door.  If someone doesn't want to pay or
> trade for it, it wasn't useful(.)  Philanthropy is of course paying for
> something that benefits others.
>
> R.
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <
> dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> That makes sense, as an operating system is, a software machine.
>>>
>>
>> exactly. I was meant to start my reply with "yes Ryan! a machine! :)"
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I see where you are headed on open versus coercive...it is an interesting
>>> line.  Enabling is the key.  The idea must be that people receive more value
>>> by sharing than not.
>>>
>>
>>
>>> The further I go, the more I realize the only possible system (not the
>>> one most desired) is markets.  Whether markets can function in a
>>> post-capitalism world (a world without debt driven growth) is indeed an
>>> interesting question.
>>>
>>
>> YES ! I can agree, Absolutely !
>>
>> Including...
>> A MARKET MADE OUT OF DONATIONS :))) ... ( where we choose which
>> interdependencies to participate in or not - based on transparency )
>>
>> facilitating a transfer of resources into "communal sharing" relational
>> dynamics.
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/20100711/2a066f7d/attachment.html>