From: Dana Hedberg (dah@signalinteractive.com)
Date: Wed Jul 12 2000 - 11:06:51 MDT
"Emlyn (onetel)" wrote:
[Copyright-less comments about music and making a living deleted.]
> Or not. Actually, I agree quite strongly with you on this Lee; information
> should be free. But I think this is only half the picture, because I think
> everything should be free.
>
> Seriously. To be more precise, I think that ownership is a seriously flawed
> concept that damages freedom, and has created the massively unjust world in
> which we now live, with a small minority of people making up the very rich
> (that's us westerners), and the large majority of people belonging to the
> legions of the mindnumbingly, incomprehensibly poor. This, because people
> own things, which means that others in turn are excluded from their use.
>
I can see evolutionary reasons for the rise of the concept of ownership.
Not to mention that it becomes very difficult for you to use something
when I'm in the process of using it...yes, some ugly little scuffles
would most likely be the quickly realized default.
> I detailed in a recent post one idea for a future market economy which did
> not include a concept of ownership (or more correctly, included the concept
> that everyone owns everything). In that scenario, I would have absolutely no
> problem with taking away copyright; it becomes meaningless.
>
This is very interesting. When you say everything, do you also include
semi- and sentient objects/collections of matter/energy? Why or why not?
Do you think it's possible to convert from a capitalist/property
ownership system to your idea of an all-owner economy? Or, is that
something that probably would have to have been started from the
beginning of civilization?
If you wouldn't mind Emlyn, could you please repost your idea, or you
can send it to me directly if you feel it would be unnecessary clutter
for the list in general. Thanks.
>
> Emlyn
-Dana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:53 MST