Pure information such as ideas, plans, intellect, software, video, audio, genetics, or any design of any kind is not rivalrous, so does not need owners. But each copy must be “hosted” by the rivalrous land and capital needed to store, copy and express it. It is this inescapable connection to the physical world that makes bread and software both infinite in potential, but always limited immediately by the current number of copies in existence, and into the future by the Physical Sources and labor needed to make more copies.
We can think of information as the ‘Virtual’ sources of production, while ‘Physical’ sources are the material aspects of reality such as space, mass and energy. Examples of physical sources include land, water, sunlight, seeds/eggs/spores, buildings, tools, computers, electricity, gas, food, etc.
Information is non-rivalrous in and of itself, but it cannot be utilized, and will often even cease to exist without Physical Sources for storage and expression.
The design of a car, the data and code composing a software program, the genetics of a living organism, a picture, an email, a video or song, etc. always requires physical space, mass and energy to store and express it. Information is not infinite ONLY because it is permanently anchored to the physical world through this requirement of hosting. For instance, when you copy a program, the new copy must be stored on optical, magnetic or ‘flash’ media which itself requires space; and the entire operation requires electricity. Even if the program is so small that you can just memorize it, and type it in at another terminal, it still must reside in your grey matter until transfer it through the keyboard to the RAM and then hard-drive of the computer you work at.
So, while the GNU General Public License can be used to free any information, we are still at the mercy of those that own the physical sources required for hosting and manufacturing.
Small-time hosting is fairly cheap and easy for an individual, but some things are too expensive to be held by a single person, or are only meaningful in a group setting.
For instance, the machinery and buildings needed to manufacture cars and computers are terribly expensive and out of reach for a single individual. Setting such as a “community center” and the physical infrastructure of a network are usually only meaningful if more than one person is participating.
So it is useful to be able to “share” or “co-own” resources, but this organization is typically left to those that intend to extract profit from the consumers or users that need the objects of those facilities.
As a community of users grows around that hardware, it becomes more and more clear that the owners are in control even if the virtual sources being used are free.
The GNU General Public License is a trade agreement originally between the copyright holders (the developers/programmers/artists), and finally between all object INSTANCE owners (those owning the media used to host their own copy) that share with others.
When such trade occurs, the INSTANCE owner is required to allow that new user “at cost” access to the Virtual Sources of that information. This is fairly trivial for Virtual Sources, as the costs are quite small (though never zero). But what can we do for the User to gain control of the Physical Sources of production?
I have an idea about how to go about this, but am not sure it is complete or even accurate. Please tell me what you think of the following proposal, and how we might merge these ideas with those of others working on creating a physical commons.
The kernel of my idea is to write a contract that causes any price paid above cost (what would usually be called profit) to become an investment in more physical sources required to insure that objective continues to be hosted in the future under the direct but collective control (limited by the agreement of the owners of each realistically divisible sub-group) of that very same user. In this way hosting can be large-scale while remaining under consumer control.
The contract would then be used by any group of consumers that buy physical sources for the purpose of product instead of profit.
This perpetuates user freedom through dynamic allocation of physical sources as real property ownership. New users thus gain ownership when the profit they pay becomes their own investment toward more physical sources – so that price approaches cost as competition approaches perfection.
Patrick,
Where (in an email recently) you had dismissed examples like openfarmtech.org etc as “Pure Design”, I could just as easily dismiss everything you talk about as “Pure Economic Models”.
I don’t think that you have hit on some kind of seminal, irreducible “core” of human systems problem solving with your proposed economic ideas.
Economic ideas are only useful if people will use them.
I think your concepts are sound, as I’ve said before. But, I’d challenge you to find even 10 people who are willing to adopt what you suggest in practice. Who are willing to *invest* in your idea, by adopting and employing it.
I think in time, maybe 3 years, maybe 5 years, maybe more, that more people will emerge who’s thinking is aligned with yours. But, at this time, it’s too radically different from the way that most people are solving their problems of existence.
This is why I concentrate on ways of solving problems of existence that don’t demand or insist that everyone must stop solving problems in part by employing capitalistic systems. because, everyone won’t. I want to make systems that can *interface* with existing systems, and even employ them. I don’t accept that just because you have found a better economic model that it is unethical and immoral, or irrelevant that I do not immediately adopt it.
For instance, an even better economic model than the one that you are proposing would be for me, and everyone else to just give everything to each other for free, and completely trust that every person would supply every other person with something. This is even more theoretically efficient than UserOwned. Not only is there no “Price above cost”, there is NO PRICE AT ALL! In my model, not just “users” or consumers own the means of production. EVERYONE owns them! So, I don’t understand why you don’t adopt my “everything is free” model over “User Owner”? My model is obviously the most ethical, moral choice that there could ever be in an economic model, period.
But seriously, I believe that to have the highest likelihood for success in actually seeing change, that the conditions for helping change happen must emerge first.
It is my belief that everything that you are dismissing as “*pure design*” is in fact helping to create the conditions of change that people who are *locked* into current paradigms need. It’s clear to me, at least, that a huge swath of people are not anywhere near giving up their current solutions (ie exchanging money for goods). I think a possible pathway is for people to find ways to eliminate the need to depend on the entities that help bolster and support price above cost. Then, when these people have some breathing room, and some of the long standing economic pressure is removed, they can start build the cultural infrastructure, and personal literacies that WILL be needed for a solution like the one that you propose.
You’d be surprised at how many people don’t really know how to collaborate, how to be involved in civic ways, how to build and sustain good relationships, all of which would be needed for people to succeed in the model you describe.
We are getting closer, though. The paradigm of a “commons”, and the accompanying emerging ways that people are learning to co-manage them is leading towards groups of people who will be able to sustain “user owned” systems.
Sam,
I should have been more careful and complete with my labeling.
I know VIA Technologies and Marcin are both accomplishing more than design.
The *Pure Design* label was showing that only the designs (Virtual Sources) are being made ‘Open’ or ‘Free(dom)’, whereas I want to talk about the strange case of making the Physical Sources of those things ‘Open’ or ‘Free(dom)’.
I don’t think that you have hit on some kind of seminal, irreducible “core” of human systems problem solving with your proposed economic ideas.
This isn’t an ego trip for me. I’m only reporting what I observe.
I am severely concerned about the welfare of our planet and the unnecessary starvation-levels in food production caused by treating profit as a reward – which has caused agribusiness to drive the US government to pass legislation that has brought us toward the brink of disaster all in the name of keeping price above cost.
Economic ideas are only useful if people will use them.
Yes, and many people are surprised that software developers are willing to invest (mostly labor) into Free Software for which they only receive use-value. Those developers are investing (doing that work) because they are also consumers of that software wanting more control and a lower price.
I think your concepts are sound, as I’ve said before. But, I’d challenge you to find even 10 people who are willing to adopt what you suggest in practice. Who are willing to *invest* in your idea, by adopting and employing it.
I think almost any consumer would want to invest toward getting a better product at a lower price. The problem is a matter of organization, and I’m no businessman.
We should go after high-need + high-profit businesses first. Organic food production is number one on my list.
I think in time, maybe 3 years, maybe 5 years, maybe more, that more people will emerge who’s thinking is aligned with yours. But, at this time, it’s too radically different from the way that most people are solving their problems of existence.
Are you saying I should just be quiet and wait?
This is why I concentrate on ways of solving problems of existence that don’t demand or insist that everyone must stop solving problems in part by employing capitalistic systems. because, everyone won’t. I want to make systems that can *interface* with existing systems, and even employ them. I don’t accept that just because you have found a better economic model that it is unethical and immoral, or irrelevant that I do not immediately adopt it.
I do not care about ethics or morals since they are arbitrarily defined.
For instance, an even better economic model than the one that you are proposing would be for me, and everyone else to just give everything to each other for free, and completely trust that every person would supply every other person with something. This is even more theoretically efficient than UserOwned. Not only is there no “Price above cost”, there is NO PRICE AT ALL! In my model, not just “users” or consumers own the means of production. EVERYONE owns them! So, I don’t understand why you don’t adopt my “everything is free” model over “User Owner”? My model is obviously the most ethical, moral choice that there could ever be in an economic model, period.
I just look at it as transactions between processes vying for hardware. I’m assuming everyone (every process) will try to “get away with” as much as they can.
If everyone would just “do the right thing”, we wouldn’t already be in this mess.
But seriously, I believe that to have the highest likelihood for success in actually seeing change, that the conditions for helping change happen must emerge first.
Should I just wait silently?
It is my belief that everything that you are dismissing as “*pure design*” is in fact helping to create the conditions of change that people who are *locked* into current paradigms need. It’s clear to me, at least, that a huge swath of people are not anywhere near giving up their current solutions (ie exchanging money for goods).
I don’t want to stop using currency, though we do need to wean ourselves off of the terrible Federal Reserve Note that we purchase and then rent from private, off-shore bankers.
I think a possible pathway is for people to find ways to eliminate the need to depend on the entities that help bolster and support price above cost.
Profit is extremely dangerous because it incents artificial scarcity, destruction, and finally war.
Then, when these people have some breathing room, and some of the long standing economic pressure is removed, they can start build the cultural infrastructure, and personal literacies that WILL be needed for a solution like the one that you propose.
It’s really only a matter of making sure your investors are consumers. You can then pay them in product instead of profit.
You’d be surprised at how many people don’t really know how to collaborate, how to be involved in civic ways, how to build and sustain good relationships, all of which would be needed for people to succeed in the model you describe.
I don’t see why. I’m not saying the consumers would be required to do that specific work. We need division of labor for an efficient society, and I assume the consumer would often be retreiving the income to pay those workers by doing his own work in some other field. A consumer owned business could operate quite the same internally.
We are getting closer, though. The paradigm of a “commons”, and the accompanying emerging ways that people are learning to co-manage them is leading towards groups of people who will be able to sustain “user owned” systems.
Why or in what way would a manager need to respond differently to for-product shareholders than he would to for-profit shareholders?
Patrick,
Of course you know that I don’t think you should be silent.
But, it seems that you think that myself, and others should be doing something different than we are doing now.
So, you’ve told us what you think we should be doing differently. I’ve responded that I think there are some reasons why what you suggest will not work in real-world conditions, with the people, cultures, worldviews that I am working with.
So, that is my response to your original question of “why are you focusing on this, when you could be focusing on user-owner instead?”
The response again is because I do not think that the people, and their existing worldviews and culture will resonate with, adopt, or employ what you suggest.
I do think that people like myself, “early adopters”, will be willing to experiment with the idea, to try it out. That is something that I have offered in the past.
But, I know that pretty much the only way to make people change in ways they are not ready to, by your own schedule, is at gunpoint, “revolution” style. And then, as in the past when this method is employed, you haven’t really changed those people, you have actually caused them to regress into fear-based ways of solving problems. Not that I think that this is what you want to do. But, it is the only way that works to make social change happen when people are not yet ready for it, which *is* what you are asking for.
Otherwise, you’re at the mercy of other people being ready, willing, and able to accept your solutions to problems of existence. There is no way to speed it up, save creating the conditions that help people be ready for change.
Actually, I take that back, I think there is one way to speed up “user owner”, and that is for *you* to create a real-world working example that shows people how it’s done, instead of telling people they should adopt model that no-one can yet find any concrete proof upon which to base assumptions about it. Lead us by example. That is what the open source software developers that you are talking about did. They *built* software, and shared it under paradigms of their creation, and thus proved that their system was sustainable.
To be honest, this sounds very similar to the way various cooperatives are structured. A consumer coop sounds equivalent to user owner. Now I’m not sure that they write the stipulations regarding the use of surpluses into member contracts, but that’s essentially the point given that users own them.
So it might be worth looking into some of the more creative cooperative structures and membership contracts and comparing them.
There are actually laws that govern the use of surpluses for worker cooperatives in several European countries, like France and Italy. Those would be worth looking at too.
But yeah, this sounds like an interesting way to iterate a model that is very well-established. There are tens of thousands of well-functioning coops around the world, that have millions or members-owners.