[p2p-research] Micro-Finance in India Stumbling

[Patrick Anderson]

j.martin.pedersen wrote:

> Michel Bauwens wrote:
>> it may be just a case of inadequate regulation,
>
> Yes, they forgot to reconfigure property relations

Ah, yes, the *They*.

The 'They' will never reconfigure property relations except for their
own benefit.

That work is up to *us* - it is up to We the People.


==Repurposing Property Ownership
WE must be the change we seek, and we can do it through -
hold onto your hat ... we can do it through Property Ownership!

"What!?" you say, "How can you possibly use something as vicious and
terrible as Private Property in a 'good' manner?".

The secret lies in how the GNU GPL uses Copyright against itself as Copyleft.
We can use the same pattern in the physical realm as, well, as "Property Left".

"Property Left" will be a legally-binding document enforcing Social
Standards we seek.
We then organize to co-purchase Land and Tools that we will place
under this compact.


==Origin and Purpose of Growth
By doing this we give ourselves the opportunity to "do the right
thing" with ownership.

But before we can write such a Private Law we will need to understand how groups
gain property (how they grow), and *WHO* should control that new ownership.

Growth occurs when Price is kept above Cost.
So Profit is a very important source of Growth.

But what is Profit?  Where does it come from?


==Origin and Purpose of Profit
Profit indicates a Payer's lack of property ownership in Sources.

When he who eats the fruit is the Owner of the tree, then only Costs are paid.
There is no Profit because there is no Purchase, for the eater owns it already.


This collapses the complexity of exchange down to trading only skills.
Customers pre-pay for Goods and Services to become Source Owners.

Those with Skill can pay with Work if what they offer is wanted in the network.
While any Profit occurring naturally is treated as Payer Investment in
more Sources.

So growth and clustering is possible, but occurs in an auto-distributed manner.
Those *new* property holdings are then under the co-command of he who paid.



==Implementation
Owners Rule.  They can add any arbitrary laws (rules) to their property.

We can use this to our advantage similar to how the GNU GPL protects
our 'virtual' property.
So let us buy together and co-own the Sources of Production needed for
our sovereignty.

And then apply a Terms Of Operation as a legally binding Social
Compact that defines the negative-feedback loops needed by any
Hypervisor when dividing computing resources among otherwise
destructively greedy Operating Systems.

We will design a system of interaction that describes constraints on Exchange.
It can be thought of a Free as in Freedom Trade Agreement (FaiFTA).

Through this binding agent we can enforce a bare-minimum set of
requirements for Allocation and Scheduling of resources we hold in
'common'.

It will be a sort of 'Simulated Commons' in that we are explicitly
using Property Ownership to partition the earth into small chunks that
we collectively purchase for our own benefit.


====Example

1.) A large group co-buys (crowd-funds) a parcel of land.

2.) The land is held in perpetuity by a Trust or non-profit
corporation, or whatever (I don't know all the different instruments
that can be chosen from).

3.) The Trust *must* either qualify as a non-profit entity or move
outside of city-limits to escape city property taxes that will
otherwise punish all improvements.

4.) Doing this will 'virtualize' access to the Land - allowing
individuals and corporations to Lease parts of the whole, but never
able to sell any part.

5.) The most important point of this is the structure of those Leases
- which can be thought-of as a sort of internal property tax - and how
they must weigh against *holdings* instead of weighing against
improvements.

The concept of "Profit is Payer Investment" still applies, and means
"Whenever the amount of a Lease is more than needed to cover Costs,
that overpayment becomes the Payer's co-ownership in the Trust.

6.) I'm still uncertain if this is sufficient.  I've always imagined
whatever Social Compact we design must also apply to movable co-owned
Capital (tools and such), but am trying to get away from that
approach, mostly because it is so hard to 'police' and 'enforce'.

7.) This is still incomplete.