Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Generalizing Peer Production into the Physical World

Expand Messages
  • Lucas Gonze
    The site: http://peerconomy.org/ So far, this new mode of production—peer production—has been limited to certain niches of production, such as information
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The site: http://peerconomy.org/

      "So far, this new mode of production—peer production—has been limited to
      certain niches of production, such as information goods. This book
      discusses whether this limitation is necessary or whether the potential
      of peer production extends farther."


      The book:
      http://peerconomy.org/text/peer-economy.pdf

      "Generalizing Peer Production into the Physical World"

      "While Benkler has identified social production and production
      as important phenomena, he appears to consider
      relevant only for certain niches of production, such information
      goods. In this text we will discuss whether this
      to niches—even important niches such as information
      is justified or whether it under-estimates the potential
      production. To put it in other words: Is a society
      which peer production is the primary mode of production?
      so, how could such a society be organized?"
    • Scott Feamster
      Dear all, In his book Christian Siefkes argues that peer economies (sharing and cooperation) are better than market economies (property and competition).
      Message 2 of 28 , Nov 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear all,

        In his book Christian Siefkes argues that peer economies (sharing and
        cooperation) are better than market economies (property and competition).
        Siefkes also asserts that capitalism is drudgery whereas peer production is
        fun.

        However, history has already proven that market/capitalist economies are
        better than peer/communist economies, except for communist party bosses.
        Were communist gulags fun?

        Additionally, market economies allow for voluntary peer economies within
        them. Communist economies are command and control.

        I think Siefkes arguments support market/capitalist economies despite his
        protests. What do you think?

        In pursuit of wisdom,
        Scott

        -----Original Message-----
        From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lucas Gonze
        Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 10:53 AM
        To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [decentralization] Generalizing Peer Production into the Physical
        World


        The site: http://peerconomy.org/

        "So far, this new mode of production-peer production-has been limited to
        certain niches of production, such as information goods. This book
        discusses whether this limitation is necessary or whether the potential
        of peer production extends farther."


        The book:
        http://peerconomy.org/text/peer-economy.pdf

        "Generalizing Peer Production into the Physical World"

        "While Benkler has identified social production and production as important
        phenomena, he appears to consider relevant only for certain niches of
        production, such information goods. In this text we will discuss whether
        this to niches-even important niches such as information is justified or
        whether it under-estimates the potential production. To put it in other
        words: Is a society which peer production is the primary mode of production?
        so, how could such a society be organized?"

        Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
        http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Alen Peacock
        Centrally planned economies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) form a simple analog to centralized system architectures. In that regard, truly
        Message 3 of 28 , Nov 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Centrally planned economies
          (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) form a simple analog to
          centralized system architectures. In that regard, truly decentralized
          (p2p) systems share much more in common with the free market than do
          their conterparts.

          But AFAIK, central control isn't limited to communism: cartel/monopoly
          power is similarly centralized, or at least "highly concentrated."

          I should disclaim "IANAE," where E=economist, so feel free to correct
          my broad generalizing (or forgive if I'm just stating the obvious).

          Alen


          On Nov 4, 2007 3:57 PM, Scott Feamster <sf@...> wrote:
          > Dear all,
          >
          > In his book Christian Siefkes argues that peer economies (sharing and
          > cooperation) are better than market economies (property and competition).
          > Siefkes also asserts that capitalism is drudgery whereas peer production is
          > fun.
          >
          > However, history has already proven that market/capitalist economies are
          > better than peer/communist economies, except for communist party bosses.
          > Were communist gulags fun?
          >
          > Additionally, market economies allow for voluntary peer economies within
          > them. Communist economies are command and control.
          >
          > I think Siefkes arguments support market/capitalist economies despite his
          > protests. What do you think?
          >
          > In pursuit of wisdom,
          > Scott
        • Lucas Gonze
          I have only read a few pages of this book so far, so my understanding is pretty limited, but I am pretty confident that it is not a case for communalism. That
          Message 4 of 28 , Nov 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            I have only read a few pages of this book so far, so my understanding is
            pretty limited, but I am pretty confident that it is not a case for
            communalism. That seems to be exactly the point -- that peer production
            is neither a traditional market nor socialism.

            So --

            Can peer production really extend into the physical world, or does it
            rely on special features of the digital world?

            Is peer production really an exception to the rules, or is it a new name
            for an old thing?

            -Lucas

            (BTW, Christian worked for me a little ways back. He was a stellar
            developer and overall very sharp guy, so I'm inclined to give the
            benefit of the doubt to this project).

            Alen Peacock wrote:
            > Centrally planned economies
            > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) form a simple analog to
            > centralized system architectures. In that regard, truly decentralized
            > (p2p) systems share much more in common with the free market than do
            > their conterparts.
            >
            > But AFAIK, central control isn't limited to communism: cartel/monopoly
            > power is similarly centralized, or at least "highly concentrated."
            >
            > I should disclaim "IANAE," where E=economist, so feel free to correct
            > my broad generalizing (or forgive if I'm just stating the obvious).
            >
            > Alen
            >
            >
            > On Nov 4, 2007 3:57 PM, Scott Feamster <sf@...> wrote:
            >> Dear all,
            >>
            >> In his book Christian Siefkes argues that peer economies (sharing and
            >> cooperation) are better than market economies (property and competition).
            >> Siefkes also asserts that capitalism is drudgery whereas peer production is
            >> fun.
            >>
            >> However, history has already proven that market/capitalist economies are
            >> better than peer/communist economies, except for communist party bosses.
            >> Were communist gulags fun?
            >>
            >> Additionally, market economies allow for voluntary peer economies within
            >> them. Communist economies are command and control.
            >>
            >> I think Siefkes arguments support market/capitalist economies despite his
            >> protests. What do you think?
            >>
            >> In pursuit of wisdom,
            >> Scott
          • Julian Bond
            Scott Feamster Sun, 4 Nov 2007 14:57:16 ... This really isn t the forum but I couldn t let that pass without a comment. IMHO mixed
            Message 5 of 28 , Nov 5, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Scott Feamster <sf@...> Sun, 4 Nov 2007 14:57:16
              >However, history has already proven that market/capitalist economies are
              >better than peer/communist economies, except for communist party bosses.
              >Were communist gulags fun?
              >
              >Additionally, market economies allow for voluntary peer economies within
              >them. Communist economies are command and control.

              This really isn't the forum but I couldn't let that pass without a
              comment. IMHO mixed Capitalist/Socialist/Peer economies provide the
              highest quality of life for the greatest number. But even these suffer
              from excessive centralised control. Wherever command and control is
              de-centralised it seems to improve things, but there is constant
              pressure in all the tribes to aggregate power into the centre.

              And of course, centralised-decentralised, and controlling-anarchic are
              both orthogonal to capitalist-communist.

              ps. Anarcho-Capitalist or Anarcho-Syndicalist, that's the real choice.

              --
              Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
              Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
              Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
              *** Just Say No To DRM ***
            • cjenscook
              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
              Message 6 of 28 , Nov 5, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                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".

                and EITHER

                (a) "Equity" in a Corporation; or

                (b) Debt in the form of credit created by a credit intermediary, aka
                a Bank.

                Well, it just ain't so: here in Scotland we don't just have "Guilty"
                and "Not Guilty" we also have "Not Proven" and the new enterprise
                models now emerging lie in that "uncertain" space.

                ie there are new legal mechanisms/ protocols which may be used
                instead of "the Corporation" to create new - and possibly optimal -
                financing solutions.

                For instance, in Canada, Trust law has been used to create an entire
                new asset class - "Income Trusts" - allowing listed Companies to sell
                off "units" in their GROSS revenues.

                Pension funds love these because they get their hands on revenues
                before the management does, and shareholders love them because they
                get their hands on money now without the fixed overhead costs and
                risks of debt.

                Trust law is essentially judge-made and is complex and costly (which
                is why lawyers love it) with tax issues for other professionals also
                to make money out of, plus management conflicts.

                It was Michael Bauer, I think, who came up with the phrase "Open
                Corporate" here a few years ago in the context of "Common Source".

                I believe that the use of consensual partnership-based protocols,
                like the US LLC and the UK LLP - a true "Open" Corporate now also
                available in Dubai, Qatar, Japan, and shortly, India - allow simple
                new mechanisms with cross-border application - a form of legal XML if
                you like.

                By putting property into "trust" with a custodian, and then creating
                simple revenue-sharing agreements between the providers
                of "financial" and "intellectual" capital it is possible to develop
                property of all types in a simple and straightforward way.

                I wrote this

                http://www.exchange-handbook.co.uk/index.cfm?
                section=articles&action=detail&id=38754

                almost six years ago in the context of global markets, where I
                continute to be engaged in developing new - peer-to-peer - market
                structures.

                For those interested in conspiracy theories, the "Iran Oil Bourse" -
                about which so much nonsense was all over the Net - was my idea, and
                is in fact still quietly ticking over...

                Best Regards

                Chris Cook


                --- In decentralization@yahoogroups.com, Julian Bond
                <julian_bond@...> wrote:
                >
                > Scott Feamster <sf@...> Sun, 4 Nov 2007 14:57:16
                > >However, history has already proven that market/capitalist
                economies are
                > >better than peer/communist economies, except for communist party
                bosses.
                > >Were communist gulags fun?
                > >
                > >Additionally, market economies allow for voluntary peer economies
                within
                > >them. Communist economies are command and control.
                >
                > This really isn't the forum but I couldn't let that pass without a
                > comment. IMHO mixed Capitalist/Socialist/Peer economies provide the
                > highest quality of life for the greatest number. But even these
                suffer
                > from excessive centralised control. Wherever command and control is
                > de-centralised it seems to improve things, but there is constant
                > pressure in all the tribes to aggregate power into the centre.
                >
                > And of course, centralised-decentralised, and controlling-anarchic
                are
                > both orthogonal to capitalist-communist.
                >
                > ps. Anarcho-Capitalist or Anarcho-Syndicalist, that's the real
                choice.
                >
                > --
                > Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907
                2173
                > Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412
                433
                > Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?
                chat
                > *** Just Say No To DRM ***
                >
              • Clay Shirky
                ... ...or, as a third thesis, will the physical world increasingly take on the features of the digital world? An increasing number of physical activities are
                Message 7 of 28 , Nov 5, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Can peer production really extend into the physical world, or does it
                  > rely on special features of the digital world?

                  ...or, as a third thesis, will the physical world increasingly take on
                  the features of the digital world?

                  An increasing number of physical activities are becoming so
                  data-centric that the physical aspects are simply executional steps at
                  the end of a chain of digital manipulation. Cemex and Zara, the cement
                  and fashion companies, both re-tooled their working methods around
                  rapid handling of data. ZeroPrestige design kites with CAD, and has
                  them built overseas after perfecting a design. Gold Corp in Canada let
                  users figure out where they should dig next, using the geologic data
                  they exposed. Nokia increasingly ship phones with user-accesible APIs,
                  making them one of a growing class of object-oriented objects.

                  And so on.

                  I think peer production, at least as Yochai has described it, requires
                  the flexibility and economics of the digital, but an increasing number
                  of physical processes have significantly digital components.

                  -clay

                  >
                  > Is peer production really an exception to the rules, or is it a new name
                  > for an old thing?
                  >
                  > -Lucas
                  >
                  > (BTW, Christian worked for me a little ways back. He was a stellar
                  > developer and overall very sharp guy, so I'm inclined to give the
                  > benefit of the doubt to this project).
                  >
                  > Alen Peacock wrote:
                  > > Centrally planned economies
                  > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) form a simple analog to
                  > > centralized system architectures. In that regard, truly decentralized
                  > > (p2p) systems share much more in common with the free market than do
                  > > their conterparts.
                  > >
                  > > But AFAIK, central control isn't limited to communism: cartel/monopoly
                  > > power is similarly centralized, or at least "highly concentrated."
                  > >
                  > > I should disclaim "IANAE," where E=economist, so feel free to correct
                  > > my broad generalizing (or forgive if I'm just stating the obvious).
                  > >
                  > > Alen
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > On Nov 4, 2007 3:57 PM, Scott Feamster <sf@...> wrote:
                  > >> Dear all,
                  > >>
                  > >> In his book Christian Siefkes argues that peer economies (sharing and
                  > >> cooperation) are better than market economies (property and competition).
                  > >> Siefkes also asserts that capitalism is drudgery whereas peer production is
                  > >> fun.
                  > >>
                  > >> However, history has already proven that market/capitalist economies are
                  > >> better than peer/communist economies, except for communist party bosses.
                  > >> Were communist gulags fun?
                  > >>
                  > >> Additionally, market economies allow for voluntary peer economies within
                  > >> them. Communist economies are command and control.
                  > >>
                  > >> I think Siefkes arguments support market/capitalist economies despite his
                  > >> protests. What do you think?
                  > >>
                  > >> In pursuit of wisdom,
                  > >> Scott
                  >
                  >
                  > Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                  > http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Miles Fidelman
                  ... Which completely leaves out: - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by either its membership or a board of trustees - cooperative
                  Message 8 of 28 , Nov 5, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    cjenscook wrote:
                    > 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:

                    - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by either its
                    membership or a board of trustees

                    - cooperative corporation - again, governed by its members (and if you
                    think coops can't be effective businesses, check out the financials on
                    Ocean Spray, or True Value Hardware)
                  • cjenscook
                    ... Miles Fidelman replied ... either its membership or a board of trustees ... you think coops can t be effective businesses, check out the financials on
                    Message 9 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > cjenscook wrote:
                      > > 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".
                      > >

                      Miles Fidelman replied
                      > Which completely leaves out:
                      >
                      > - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by
                      either its membership or a board of trustees

                      > - cooperative corporation - again, governed by its members (and if
                      you 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.

                      See

                      http://www.telekommunisten.net/venture-communism#

                      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.

                      Chris
                    • Scott Feamster
                      Hi, guys, There are multiple ownership alternatives, not just two. If we want to group ownership into two groups, the following two might be more appropriate.
                      Message 10 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi, guys,

                        There are multiple ownership alternatives, not just two. If we want to
                        group ownership into two groups, the following two might be more
                        appropriate.
                        * State ownership held in the name of the people: communism, socialism,...
                        * Ownership actually held by the people: public companies, private
                        companies,...

                        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
                        relationships.

                        Globalizing networks were founded with the earliest worldwide traders. The
                        difference now is that we deploy silicon and software rather than caravel's
                        and camels.

                        Open societies assure open software competition, both for and not for
                        profit. What do you think?

                        For freedom and software,
                        Scott

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                        [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cjenscook
                        Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:20 AM
                        To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [decentralization] Re: Generalizing Peer Production into the
                        Physical World

                        > cjenscook wrote:
                        > > 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".
                        > >

                        Miles Fidelman replied
                        > Which completely leaves out:
                        >
                        > - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by
                        either its membership or a board of trustees

                        > - cooperative corporation - again, governed by its members (and if
                        you 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.

                        See

                        http://www.telekommunisten.net/venture-communism#

                        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.

                        Chris

                        Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                        http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      • Miles Fidelman
                        ... Well, yes, but... that s a somewhat fallacious point of view that s been pushed by vested interests and a cooperative media. It wasn t that long ago when
                        Message 11 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          cjenscook wrote:
                          >> cjenscook wrote:
                          >>
                          >>> 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".
                          >>>
                          >
                          > Miles Fidelman replied
                          >
                          >> Which completely leaves out:
                          >>
                          >> - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by
                          >> - cooperative corporation - again, governed by its members
                          > 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.
                          >
                          Well, yes, but... that's a somewhat fallacious point of view that's been
                          pushed by vested interests and a cooperative media.

                          It wasn't that long ago when people talked about public investment in
                          infrastructure, education, basic research, and so forth as critical
                          precursors to private wealth - be it investments in highways, airports,
                          packet switching networks, or what have you.

                          Patterns of thinking and discourse cycle, and this one will as well.
                          > 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.
                          >
                          <snip>
                          > 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.
                          >
                          > See
                          >
                          > http://www.telekommunisten.net/venture-communism#
                          >
                          > 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.
                          >
                          I'm not sure that we need radical new enterprise models. There are all
                          kinds of ways to structure things within current law (at least in the
                          US) - be it foundations owning private companies, cooperatives,
                          employee-owned companies, municipal utilities, etc. A lot of things can
                          be accomplished by charter, by-laws, and in the case of stock
                          corporations, who owns the stock and how it's managed. And there are
                          lots of examples of creative arrangements.

                          It's more a matter of the values, goals, and will of the individuals and
                          groups involved in an enterprise.

                          Miles
                        • Miles Fidelman
                          good points which leads to a question: other than academic discourse, is this topic leading anywhere, or have we talked it to death? :-)
                          Message 12 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            good points

                            which leads to a question: other than academic discourse, is this topic
                            leading anywhere, or have we talked it to death? :-)

                            Scott Feamster wrote:
                            > Hi, guys,
                            >
                            > There are multiple ownership alternatives, not just two. If we want to
                            > group ownership into two groups, the following two might be more
                            > appropriate.
                            > * State ownership held in the name of the people: communism, socialism,...
                            > * Ownership actually held by the people: public companies, private
                            > companies,...
                            >
                            > 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
                            > relationships.
                            >
                            > Globalizing networks were founded with the earliest worldwide traders. The
                            > difference now is that we deploy silicon and software rather than caravel's
                            > and camels.
                            >
                            > Open societies assure open software competition, both for and not for
                            > profit. What do you think?
                            >
                            > For freedom and software,
                            > Scott
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                            > [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cjenscook
                            > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:20 AM
                            > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: [decentralization] Re: Generalizing Peer Production into the
                            > Physical World
                            >
                            >
                            >> cjenscook wrote:
                            >>
                            >>> 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".
                            >>>
                            >>>
                            >
                            > Miles Fidelman replied
                            >
                            >> Which completely leaves out:
                            >>
                            >> - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by
                            >>
                            > either its membership or a board of trustees
                            >
                            >
                            >> - cooperative corporation - again, governed by its members (and if
                            >>
                            > you 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.
                            >
                            > See
                            >
                            > http://www.telekommunisten.net/venture-communism#
                            >
                            > 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.
                            >
                            > Chris
                            >
                            > Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                            > http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                            > http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • cjenscook
                            ... topic ... Now that s the spirit! I ve only ever been interested in outcomes, and in problem solving. I observe a new Capital Partnership financing
                            Message 13 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > good points
                              >
                              > which leads to a question: other than academic discourse, is this
                              topic
                              > leading anywhere, or have we talked it to death? :-)


                              Now that's the spirit!

                              I've only ever been interested in outcomes, and in problem solving.

                              I observe a new "Capital Partnership" financing mechanism emerging
                              using LLP's in the UK and LLC's in the US.

                              I've used if for a film, and for a chateau in France (not mine!), but
                              it's been used in the UK on a commercial deal >£1bn and being taken
                              very seriously at top level here in Scotland because it means that
                              the "Public" Sector" can raise money without borrowing.

                              Simply form an LLP or LLC with a "Capital User" member (which could
                              be an an enterprise of any type or form) and a "Capital Provider"
                              Member, who puts in money or "money's worth" in time, goods, IP,
                              land, whatever.

                              Share the production, or the revenues from the sale of production. If
                              there are any.

                              This enables the creation and issue of a simple new "quasi Equity"
                              asset class - quite close in effect to units in a Canadian "Income
                              Trust" - of proportional "units" or "Equity Shares".

                              Shares (n'ths if you like) but not as we know them, Jim.

                              For the Investor it's a piece of the gross revenues before the
                              managers get their hands on it: for the people needing investment
                              it's a form of Equity, but not a form that means giving away any
                              control.

                              Both investor, and user of investment, are "on the same side" and not
                              conflicted, as now.

                              I did this with a film - it could equally well be done with software
                              or anything else. All the actors took "n'ths" (but we could have
                              raised more money and paid them part or all in cash), as did the
                              producer, as did I (5%).

                              We needed £10k to pay lights, cameras, pizzas etc and the deal with
                              the investors was that they get 20% (we would have given them 50% but
                              the producer's a great negotiator and salesman!) of the revenues -
                              if there are any. In the meantime they've lost £10k which can be
                              offset quite legitimately against taxable income.

                              It's an inherently co-operative model as well, hence all the academic
                              stuff up-thread. But it has nothing whatever to do with Companies,
                              which essentially became redundant when the UK were blackmailed into
                              the UK LLP by the accountancy profession 7 years ago.

                              It's not "my" model: I've simply been watching what people have been
                              doing with these simple new partnership-based forms.

                              Debt and equity (as we know it) are obsolete.

                              And we see an entirely new enterprise model (legal and financial
                              structure) emerging.

                              Chris
                            • Lucas Gonze
                              ... Fantastic point. The real world is becoming a bunch of I/O devices with computers in between. Pretty much everything can be conceived of as one or the
                              Message 14 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Clay Shirky wrote:
                                > ...or, as a third thesis, will the physical world increasingly take on
                                > the features of the digital world?

                                Fantastic point.

                                The real world is becoming a bunch of I/O devices with computers in
                                between. Pretty much everything can be conceived of as one or the other.
                              • Scott Feamster
                                Isn t the digital world part of the physical world? The world can also be categorized into two groups. * Tangible: software, hardware, nature,... * Intangible:
                                Message 15 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Isn't the digital world part of the physical world?

                                  The world can also be categorized into two groups.
                                  * Tangible: software, hardware, nature,...
                                  * Intangible: truth, beauty, love,...

                                  The intangible is the most important.

                                  For the intangibles,
                                  Scott

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                  [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lucas Gonze
                                  Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 5:35 PM
                                  To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [decentralization] Generalizing Peer Production into the
                                  Physical World

                                  On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Clay Shirky wrote:
                                  > ...or, as a third thesis, will the physical world increasingly take on
                                  > the features of the digital world?

                                  Fantastic point.

                                  The real world is becoming a bunch of I/O devices with computers in
                                  between. Pretty much everything can be conceived of as one or the other.

                                  Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                                  http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                                • Scott Feamster
                                  Hi, Chris and all, What Chris describes is equity capital that we call friends and family, angel, or venture capital investment in the U.S. Equity will
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi, Chris and all,

                                    What Chris describes is equity capital that we call friends and family,
                                    angel, or venture capital investment in the U.S. Equity will continue to
                                    provide the costliest investment dollars; debt will continue to provide the
                                    cheapest investment dollars.

                                    With respect to Mile Fidelman's question about where this is leading:
                                    * Does anyone have relationship and/or governance code?
                                    * If so, how can we and the world profit from it?
                                    * Then what relationship should we form?

                                    Chris, I'm MacGregor ancestry living near Greer Road in Palo Alto,
                                    California. What's your clan and where do you live? What was your film?

                                    "Royal is our race."
                                    Scott

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                    [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cjenscook
                                    Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:44 PM
                                    To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: [decentralization] Re: Generalizing Peer Production into the
                                    Physical World

                                    > good points
                                    >
                                    > which leads to a question: other than academic discourse, is this
                                    topic
                                    > leading anywhere, or have we talked it to death? :-)

                                    Now that's the spirit!

                                    I've only ever been interested in outcomes, and in problem solving.

                                    I observe a new "Capital Partnership" financing mechanism emerging
                                    using LLP's in the UK and LLC's in the US.

                                    I've used if for a film, and for a chateau in France (not mine!), but
                                    it's been used in the UK on a commercial deal >£1bn and being taken
                                    very seriously at top level here in Scotland because it means that
                                    the "Public" Sector" can raise money without borrowing.

                                    Simply form an LLP or LLC with a "Capital User" member (which could
                                    be an an enterprise of any type or form) and a "Capital Provider"
                                    Member, who puts in money or "money's worth" in time, goods, IP,
                                    land, whatever.

                                    Share the production, or the revenues from the sale of production. If
                                    there are any.

                                    This enables the creation and issue of a simple new "quasi Equity"
                                    asset class - quite close in effect to units in a Canadian "Income
                                    Trust" - of proportional "units" or "Equity Shares".

                                    Shares (n'ths if you like) but not as we know them, Jim.

                                    For the Investor it's a piece of the gross revenues before the
                                    managers get their hands on it: for the people needing investment
                                    it's a form of Equity, but not a form that means giving away any
                                    control.

                                    Both investor, and user of investment, are "on the same side" and not
                                    conflicted, as now.

                                    I did this with a film - it could equally well be done with software
                                    or anything else. All the actors took "n'ths" (but we could have
                                    raised more money and paid them part or all in cash), as did the
                                    producer, as did I (5%).

                                    We needed £10k to pay lights, cameras, pizzas etc and the deal with
                                    the investors was that they get 20% (we would have given them 50% but
                                    the producer's a great negotiator and salesman!) of the revenues -
                                    if there are any. In the meantime they've lost £10k which can be
                                    offset quite legitimately against taxable income.

                                    It's an inherently co-operative model as well, hence all the academic
                                    stuff up-thread. But it has nothing whatever to do with Companies,
                                    which essentially became redundant when the UK were blackmailed into
                                    the UK LLP by the accountancy profession 7 years ago.

                                    It's not "my" model: I've simply been watching what people have been
                                    doing with these simple new partnership-based forms.

                                    Debt and equity (as we know it) are obsolete.

                                    And we see an entirely new enterprise model (legal and financial
                                    structure) emerging.

                                    Chris

                                    Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                                    http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  • Julian Bond
                                    Scott Feamster Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:48:01 ... When datacentres are sucking up a significant chunk of available power, yes, definitely. It s
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Scott Feamster <sf@...> Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:48:01
                                      >Isn't the digital world part of the physical world?

                                      When datacentres are sucking up a significant chunk of available power,
                                      yes, definitely. It's turning into some kind of Charles Stross or Ian
                                      McDonald future where our entire resources become devoted to servicing
                                      the computronium. Or where we're all living in a simulation powered by
                                      the last remaining energy (spinning black holes) before the heat death
                                      of the universe.

                                      Ooops, wandered off topic there. more seriously though Teilhard de
                                      Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                                      indistinguishable from the world of things.

                                      --
                                      Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
                                      Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                                      Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
                                      *** Just Say No To DRM ***
                                    • Lucas Gonze
                                      ... Dude, it is pure naked hubris to think it s possible to wander off topic in a conversation that contains sustained lapses into silence going on for more
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Julian Bond wrote:
                                        > Ooops, wandered off topic there.

                                        Dude, it is pure naked hubris to think it's possible to wander off topic
                                        in a conversation that contains sustained lapses into silence going on
                                        for more than a year at a time and still manages to pick up the thread.

                                        > more seriously though Teilhard de
                                        > Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                                        > indistinguishable from the world of things.

                                        So what's out there which is hooked up to the internet but is not a
                                        formal communications device like a PC or phone? Chumby is the only
                                        thing I can think of.

                                        Any chance you know of any other interesting work? Are there any blogs
                                        or community centers for internet-of-things hacks?
                                      • Serguei Osokine
                                        ... I believe it was Vernadsky s Noosphere: http://www.metafilter.com/56565/History-of-a-meme - unless, of course, you are specifically referring to the parts
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Friday, November 09, 2007 Julian Bond wrote:
                                          > ...Teilhard de Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is
                                          > increasingly indistinguishable from the world of things.

                                          I believe it was Vernadsky's Noosphere:

                                          http://www.metafilter.com/56565/History-of-a-meme

                                          - unless, of course, you are specifically referring to the parts of
                                          this concept that are different in its Chardin's interpretation.

                                          Best wishes -
                                          S.Osokine.
                                          9 Nov 2007.


                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                          [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Julian Bond
                                          Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:47 AM
                                          To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: Re: [decentralization] Generalizing Peer Production into the
                                          Physical World


                                          Scott Feamster <sf@...> Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:48:01
                                          >Isn't the digital world part of the physical world?

                                          When datacentres are sucking up a significant chunk of available power,
                                          yes, definitely. It's turning into some kind of Charles Stross or Ian
                                          McDonald future where our entire resources become devoted to servicing
                                          the computronium. Or where we're all living in a simulation powered by
                                          the last remaining energy (spinning black holes) before the heat death
                                          of the universe.

                                          Ooops, wandered off topic there. more seriously though Teilhard de
                                          Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                                          indistinguishable from the world of things.

                                          --
                                          Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
                                          Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                                          Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
                                          *** Just Say No To DRM ***


                                          Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                                          http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                                        • Hugh Pyle
                                          I feel safe in predicting that pretty much everything with a retail price over $25 will be connected to the internet some day soon. Here s one I m finding
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I feel safe in predicting that pretty much everything with a retail
                                            price over $25 will be connected to the internet some day soon.

                                            Here's one I'm finding quite interesting right now.
                                            http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?JiveUI


                                            On Nov 9, 2007 10:59 AM, Lucas Gonze <lucas@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > So what's out there which is hooked up to the internet but is not a
                                            > formal communications device like a PC or phone? Chumby is the only
                                            > thing I can think of.
                                          • Mike Dierken
                                            ... Sure, other than that the world of things exists and the world of ideas doesn t.
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              > more seriously though Teilhard de Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas)

                                              > is increasingly indistinguishable from the world of things.
                                              Sure, other than that the world of things exists and the world of ideas
                                              doesn't.
                                            • Julian Bond
                                              Mike Dierken Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:39:40 ... Err, what? The World of Ideas certainly does exist. But I m twisting the original ideas. The
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Mike Dierken <dierken@...> Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:39:40
                                                >
                                                >> more seriously though Teilhard de Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas)
                                                >
                                                >> is increasingly indistinguishable from the world of things.

                                                >Sure, other than that the world of things exists and the world of ideas
                                                >doesn't.

                                                Err, what? The World of Ideas certainly does exist. But I'm twisting the
                                                original ideas. The point being that the virtual world of the internet
                                                keeps seeping out into the real world.

                                                Where's my augmented reality head up display. That's what I want to
                                                know. (and my one piece spandex jump suit, meals in pill form, personal
                                                hoverboard, cure for this disease, etc, etc)

                                                --
                                                Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
                                                Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                                                Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
                                                *** Just Say No To DRM ***
                                              • Lucas Gonze
                                                ... EG, pi is implicit in every circular object. That makes it even more durable than the objects. ... Here is an example of seeping -- I have been playing
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Julian Bond wrote:
                                                  > Err, what? The World of Ideas certainly does exist.

                                                  EG, pi is implicit in every circular object. That makes it even more
                                                  durable than the objects.


                                                  > But I'm twisting the
                                                  > original ideas. The point being that the virtual world of the internet
                                                  > keeps seeping out into the real world.


                                                  Here is an example of seeping --

                                                  I have been playing historical American music on guitar*. I learn it
                                                  from scans of sheet music in historical archives at sites like the
                                                  Library of Congress' and Duke University's. These archives contain
                                                  primary sources intended for professional historians of music. They
                                                  aren't for musicians to use in an everyday context, they are for the
                                                  same people who also travel to go to specialized music libraries. I'm
                                                  not one of those people. I'm using these resources to make music in
                                                  places like bars and coffeehouses.

                                                  I wouldn't go to a specialized music library to find stuff to play. I
                                                  did try a couple times, but both times the work was way out of line with
                                                  the goal. You need a series of appointments in-person, plus permission
                                                  and equipment to make copies.

                                                  There's nothing about my playing which is digital. It's as analog as I
                                                  can make it. But this real world activity is only possible because of
                                                  the internet. The compositions were long forgotten, usually lost to
                                                  non-historians for at least a hundred years, and they showed few signs
                                                  of life. And even if the sheet music were still in circulation in book
                                                  stores, the practice of reading music is not very common.

                                                  It only becomes possible for this music to be reanimated when the
                                                  internet makes the archives available to enough eyeballs that they meet
                                                  up with ordinary musicians who are able to read music and willing to
                                                  play hopelessly obscure material. It's an internet solution to a
                                                  physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                                                  historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                                                  nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.

                                                  And it's not an internet solution in the sense in which email is an
                                                  incremental improvement on snail mail. The internet created the
                                                  critical mass to enable peer production.

                                                  -Lucas

                                                  * see http://blog.gonze.com/category/mymusic/ for examples
                                                • Mike Dierken
                                                  ... But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc) ideas are not. That s the exists I was referring to. The statement that
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    > It's an internet solution to a
                                                    > physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                                                    > historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                                                    > nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.
                                                    >
                                                    But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc)
                                                    ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to.
                                                    The statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                                                    indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                                                    actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect people and
                                                    change their behavior and mass digital media has increased that rate of
                                                    change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are indistinguishable
                                                    sounds like intellectual puffery.
                                                  • Julian Bond
                                                    Mike Dierken Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:32:52 ... You re right of course. It s one of those trolls that sounds deep but doesn t actually say very
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Mike Dierken <dierken@...> Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:32:52
                                                      >But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc)
                                                      >ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to.
                                                      >The statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                                                      >indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                                                      >actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect people and
                                                      >change their behavior and mass digital media has increased that rate of
                                                      >change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are indistinguishable
                                                      >sounds like intellectual puffery.

                                                      You're right of course. It's one of those trolls that sounds deep but
                                                      doesn't actually say very much. We've been having this debate at least
                                                      since Negroponte's atoms vs bits and the philosophical underpinnings go
                                                      back much further than that. But there does seem to be a qualitative
                                                      change when so many of us make a living from manipulating symbols in the
                                                      virtual world which then allows us to buy shiny toys in the real world.

                                                      When an SUV driver blindly follows their GPS into a river and gets
                                                      stuck, apart from being stupid, isn't that a failure to distinguish
                                                      between the world of ideas and the world of things? Or is it just the
                                                      same thing we've been doing for centuries in mistaking lines of ink on a
                                                      map for real divisions between humans. Or a classic example of a 21st
                                                      century behaviour; placing blind faith in technology before the evidence
                                                      of our own senses and intelligence.[1]

                                                      [1]Easy Travel To Other Planets. Ted Mooney. Two new emotions appeared
                                                      in the 20th century. The feeling of being entirely alone in a crowd. The
                                                      feeling of running as fast as possible without going anywhere.

                                                      --
                                                      Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
                                                      Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                                                      Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
                                                      *** Just Say No To DRM ***
                                                    • Miles Fidelman
                                                      ... More to play devil s advocate on a Sunday morning, than anything else... Are ideas indistinguishable from things, or vice versa? Ideas are often
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Mike Dierken wrote:
                                                        >> It's an internet solution to a
                                                        >> physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                                                        >> historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                                                        >> nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.
                                                        >>
                                                        >>
                                                        > But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc)
                                                        > ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to.
                                                        > The statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                                                        > indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                                                        > actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect people and
                                                        > change their behavior and mass digital media has increased that rate of
                                                        > change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are indistinguishable
                                                        > sounds like intellectual puffery.
                                                        >
                                                        More to play devil's advocate on a Sunday morning, than anything else...

                                                        Are ideas indistinguishable from things, or vice versa?

                                                        Ideas are often stored/represented as states of matter, or systems
                                                        behavior. Consider:

                                                        - the difference between two books: they may weigh the same, but what's
                                                        printed on the pages makes all the difference, or,

                                                        - a computer running a specific program behaves very differently than
                                                        one running a different program, or one that's halted (and that can
                                                        effect very physical things like energy used by that machine, or,

                                                        - the physical states of our bodies are very much interdependent with
                                                        what we are thinking, the activities of our autonomic nervous systems,
                                                        and the state of various chemicals (natural and otherwise) in our
                                                        bloodstreams.

                                                        Is an endorphin "high" an idea or a physical state or both? What about
                                                        being agitated?

                                                        And then you can always look toward basic physics: energy and matter are
                                                        interchangeable, as are energy and information content (entropy).
                                                      • Scott Feamster
                                                        In the middle, it s people among tangibles (sheet music and mics) and intangibles (thoughts and emotions). In the end, it s the intangibles that give our lives
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          In the middle, it's people among tangibles (sheet music and mics) and
                                                          intangibles (thoughts and emotions).

                                                          In the end, it's the intangibles that give our lives meaning; e.g., love.

                                                          Love is energy created by matter.

                                                          -----Original Message-----
                                                          From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                                          [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
                                                          Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 7:36 AM
                                                          To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                                          Subject: Re: [decentralization] Generalizing Peer Production into the
                                                          Physical World


                                                          Mike Dierken wrote:
                                                          >> It's an internet solution to a
                                                          >> physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                                                          >> historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                                                          >> nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.
                                                          >>
                                                          >>
                                                          > But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber,
                                                          > etc) ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to. The
                                                          > statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                                                          > indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                                                          > actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect
                                                          > people and change their behavior and mass digital media has increased
                                                          > that rate of change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are
                                                          > indistinguishable sounds like intellectual puffery.
                                                          >
                                                          More to play devil's advocate on a Sunday morning, than anything else...

                                                          Are ideas indistinguishable from things, or vice versa?

                                                          Ideas are often stored/represented as states of matter, or systems
                                                          behavior. Consider:

                                                          - the difference between two books: they may weigh the same, but what's
                                                          printed on the pages makes all the difference, or,

                                                          - a computer running a specific program behaves very differently than
                                                          one running a different program, or one that's halted (and that can
                                                          effect very physical things like energy used by that machine, or,

                                                          - the physical states of our bodies are very much interdependent with
                                                          what we are thinking, the activities of our autonomic nervous systems,
                                                          and the state of various chemicals (natural and otherwise) in our
                                                          bloodstreams.

                                                          Is an endorphin "high" an idea or a physical state or both? What about
                                                          being agitated?

                                                          And then you can always look toward basic physics: energy and matter are
                                                          interchangeable, as are energy and information content (entropy).


                                                          Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                                                          http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                                                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                        • cjenscook
                                                          Hi Scott Although I m based in Linlithgow, Scotland (birthplace of Mary, Queen of Scots) I m not Scottish myself, just a mongrel. ... family, angel, or venture
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Hi Scott

                                                            Although I'm based in Linlithgow, Scotland (birthplace of Mary, Queen
                                                            of Scots) I'm not Scottish myself, just a mongrel.

                                                            --- In decentralization@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Feamster" <sf@...>
                                                            wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            > What Chris describes is equity capital that we call friends and
                                                            family, angel, or venture capital investment in the U.S. Equity will
                                                            continue to provide the costliest investment dollars; debt will
                                                            continue to provide the cheapest investment dollars.
                                                            >

                                                            The "who" is immaterial.

                                                            It's the "how" of this new form of Equity that is entirely novel
                                                            (although, as I said, Canadian "Income Trusts" come close).

                                                            This is not "Equity" as in a Limited Company, and is a lot less
                                                            risky, albeit the returns MAY be less than those from Equity in a
                                                            Corporation, so are the risks.

                                                            Investors receive a proportional share of the revenues from the
                                                            property financed (whether Real property or IP) BEFORE the
                                                            management gets its hands on them.

                                                            If there are any revenues, of course.

                                                            In other words, in this model Labour works WITH Capital not FOR it,
                                                            and you don't get the "Principal/Agent" problem which
                                                            all "Corporations" have, and which is why there is a huge body of
                                                            Company law, and that famous oxymoron, "Corporate Social
                                                            Responsibility".

                                                            This "Open" form of Capital is an entirely new and simple
                                                            (unlike "mezzanine", convertibles, warrants etc etc) middle ground
                                                            between conventional "Debt" and "Equity", and in my experience comes
                                                            in a lot less expensive than conventional "Equity", but more
                                                            expensive than "Debt" wwith potential of a much greater return.

                                                            There cannot be a default, because it is not a "cost" or
                                                            an "overhead", but rather a "pre-distribution".

                                                            This is something entirely new, and it does take a bit of getting
                                                            your head around, for sure.

                                                            Best Regards

                                                            Chris
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.