6970RE: [decentralization] Re: Generalizing Peer Production into the Physical World
- Nov 8, 2007Hi, guys,
There are multiple ownership alternatives, not just two. If we want to
group ownership into two groups, the following two might be more
* State ownership held in the name of the people: communism, socialism,...
* Ownership actually held by the people: public companies, private
Ownership by the people might also be grouped into two groups.
* For profit: sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations,...
* Not for profit: churches, charities, cooperatives,...
Although profit motives assure competition for the best ideas and solutions,
passion is also a powerful motivator. Startup ventures present multiple
forms of self-organizing entities. Legalities help to formalize working
Globalizing networks were founded with the earliest worldwide traders. The
difference now is that we deploy silicon and software rather than caravel's
Open societies assure open software competition, both for and not for
profit. What do you think?
For freedom and software,
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of cjenscook
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:20 AM
Subject: [decentralization] Re: Generalizing Peer Production into the
> cjenscook wrote:Miles Fidelman replied
> > The conventional view remains that the choice is EITHER:
> > (a) Public = State owned; OR
> > (b) Private = "owned by a "Joint Stock Limited Liability Company"
> > aka "Corporation".
> Which completely leaves out:either its membership or a board of trustees
> - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by
> - cooperative corporation - again, governed by its members (and ifyou think coops can't be effective businesses, check out the
financials on Ocean Spray, or True Value Hardware)
Agreed. And others besides. But I think that you will agree that the
principal assumption and primary discourse seems to be that "Private"
= Corporate = Wealth Creator and "Public" = State = Wealth Consumer.
I'm well aware of the effectiveness of some Cooperatives as
businesses and I advocate a networked enterprise model that is
essentially a "Cooperative of Cooperatives" or "Partnership of
Partnerships". The problem has been that until recently no legal
entity existed that permitted such a possibility.
In the UK we have long had (the very name is Victorian)
a "genetically modified" Corporate form - the "Industrial and
Provident Society" which is often used by Coops - and there are also
examples of what are effectively worker-owned Coops such as the John
Lewis Partnership, Baxi Partnership and so on which put conventional
shares into employee trusts.
My point is that these are "Organisations", with the same Principal/
Agent conflict of interest as any other Organisation as between
the "owners" on the one hand, and the "management" on the other,
albeit worker Coops are the least conflicted.
for an interesting, but radical, software business enterprise model.
I believe that using partnership protocols/ Semantic Web it is
possible to transcend "Organisations" in terms of managing
stakeholder relationships, and to create a legal framework with cross-
border application within which individuals "self organise" to the
agreed Common Purpose set out in the framework agreement.
The relevant "Property" would be held in trust by a "Custodian",
while stakeholders simply agree between themselves as to how the
value created from the use of that "Property" should be shared - in
whatever form that "value" takes.
Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>