P2P Foundation

Stan Rhodes, which is working on his own project and vision for a “utilicontributist economy”, critically engages with Christian Siefkes alternative project.

Stan Rhodes:

“1. “Competition.” This word can mean several things, but for rival goods (physical goods and services), there is always competition. Even in Alfie Kohn’s book about competition (No Contest: The Case Against Comeptition), one of the strongest indictments of competition between people ever written, he makes sure to identify and acknowledge this reality. However, you don’t seem to, and as near as I can tell, you ignore it. Further, you do not acknowledge that in peer production there is very real competition between ideas too, even as people cooperate. Your repeated generalization that my system has competition, and yours does not, is simply false. You use the phrase “task auctioning:” an auction is very clearly competitive, because it sets values that will favor one person’s preferences over another. You also use the phrase “relative price” when talking about competition over living space. I will speak more of this when I cover markets.

2. Your use of “out-compete,” “success” and “fail” seem inappropriate and without context. In my system, the person who uses the most resources pays the most. Are they “succeeding” while others are “failing?” The person who uses the least resources will be paid the most. Is that “succeeding?” My system turns everything on its head by making those that take the most resources pay the highest price. I’m assuming “out-competing” means “taking control of rival resources.” In my system, you could generate a lot of value by using little and working very hard at very high-demand tasks. However, that’s fine! Cheaters will want to disguise use, but the system is quite transparent, and the harder they try to cheat, the more likely they are to be noticed.

In my system, sharing insights and knowledge is beneficial, and hurts no one. It’s not only important, it’s built in with the commons, and only through the commons can the free market stay healthy. Anthropology, psychology, and game theory all provide significant insight into how cooperation is beneficial within the context of real, unavoidable competition over resources. My system, all told, is basically one huge networked cooperative with use tax.

3. Markets and money. In your model, there is a market, and there is money. The market in your system, as in all economic systems, enables the exchange of product ownership and services, which are evaluated and priced. The money in your system, as in all systems, is just a unit of value that exists as debit and credit (value owed and value given). You tie contributions to benefits with a distribution pool. You are bundling the market and money up under the distribution pool, but you must not see it. You’re using time, valuating with labor weight, as money.

In the distribution pool, competition still applies, as people will try to contribute the least to gain the most, and make those activities they enjoy most as heavily weighed as possible.

Consider this quote:

””The advantage for other, less popular associations lies in the effort-redistribution effect of auctioning: the higher prices for grounds and housing in other areas automatically cause the prices of all the other goods and resources distributed through the pool (including grounds and housing in their own area) to go down. This effect of course also means that the people living in a popular area will have to pay (contribute) more for housing than they would otherwise.””

You’ve identified competitive market forces at play in everything but name.

4. You ignore cheaters, and there’s not a single mention of possible cheating behavior or “what ifs” that I can find. The closest you come to addressing them is saying that people wouldn’t let other people, who don’t contribute well, be part of important projects. Without looking at how cheaters would game your system, you will not see the flaws of the market model (distribution pool) you are using.”