[p2p-research] Am I missing any commons?

[Michel Bauwens]

two short remarks,

sam's definition does definitely not apply to the current market  economy,
where none of what he posits apply; it does indeed apply to a contributory
commons

and the part of the accounts only apply to rival commons where free riding
may be an issue

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:01 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>


-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100301/1bf63c9d/attachment-0001.html>