User Ownership
Mode of production and ownership proposed (c. 2007) by Patrick Anderson, which is inspired by the philosophy behind the General Public License
Patrick Anderson aims to apply these ideas to the field of physical production as well.
Introduction
Richard Stallman's Ideas
Patrick Anderson:
The GNU GPL is very clear in its goal to insure the virtual Means of Production (source code) should be in the hands of the Users.
When RMS speaks of freedom it is always about the User (consumer), not developer, author, producer, worker or owner.
“‘With free software, the Users are in control. Most of the time, Users want interoperability, and when the software is free, they get what they want. With non-free software, the developer controls the Users. The developer permits interoperability when that suits the developer; what the Users want is beside the point.’” -- "Three Minutes with Richard Stallman" - http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137098-c,freeware/article.html
If a “Mode of Production” is defined by who controls the “Means of Production”, then the GNU Mode of Production is one in which the Users are at the helm, and **not** the Workers.
Patrick Anderson's proposals
A GNU profit sharing strategy.
The GNU General Public License uses Copyright law to ensure every Object User gains *their own 'copy' of* the **immaterial** ``Sources of Production``.
Similarly, the GNU General Public Law uses Property law to ensure every Object User gains *their own 'copy' of* the **material** ``Sources of Production``, and especially land.
This is done by slowly vesting property ownership of Sources (real estate, water rights, and other licenses or patents over finite resources) to the Users who paid that profit.
As Users gain ownership of the material Sources, they regain control of that production and no longer pay financial returns to other owners.
Observations
User Ownership is a special case in economics that has some interesting properties.
- Rent and Profit *diasappear* as goods and services are **preallocated** to the Users who will use them.
- Abundance and real solutions are goal and never thought 'destructive'.
- Scarcity is not sought and those physical Sources are real insurance.
- Work is not a goal, and can be safely reduced as we already own.
- Prices can be ignored because the product is never sold (except surplus).
- Entire supply chains can be localized and governed by the people who need that production.
FAQ
- Q: What is the big deal about User ownership?
- A: When Users are Owners, they regain control of production and rent seems to disappear.
- Q: Why are you trying to protect the User instead of the Worker?
- A: We are all Users.
- Q: But how can you claim Workers won't be exploited when they are not the owners, and therefore will have no control?
- A: Workers are also Users, of their own needs. We must protect the Worker's need for Production.
- A: Working (employment) is not a need in itself, and can be safely reduced when Users have sufficient Ownership.
- Q: Are you claiming unemployment is good?
- A: Now we must Work to pay Rent.
- A: But Rent is zero and Work is not a goal when Land is User-Owned.
- Q: If profit is the problem, then why do non-profits not prevail?
- A: Well, profit may occur whenever a product is sold, but non-profits hide those gains as extra wages or bonuses or other spending.
- A: Profit is a symptom of the problem which is property misallocation.
- A: This is easy to prove, since, when the users Own Sources, they do not buy those Products since, they own them already.
- A: Profit does not exist in this scenario because the change-of-ownership at the point-of-sale has been eliminated.
- A: We envision Tickets each user-owner would redeem to account for the goods and services they claim.
- Q: May I charge money for Free Objects?
- A: Yes, the GPL is a commercial grade free (as in freedom) trade agreement.
- Q: How much can I charge for a GPL Object?
- A: There is no limit, but some profit must buy even more land which finally vests to the Users who paid it.
- Q: How much of the price can I claim as costs?
- A: There is no limit.
- A: Profit separates from wages as the number of co-owners increases.
- A: The separation between profit and wages is arbitrary when the Sources are owned by a single person, and that person does all of the Work.
- Q: Can I apply the GNU General Public Law to a physical source such as a rototiller and then rent it to customers?
- A: Yes, in this case the 'Object' becomes the ephemeral 'Objective' of that User or the rivalrous slice of time as the duration of that rent.
- Q: So if a car factory were under such a contract, anyone could just wander in off the street and try to build their own automobile?
- A: Owners and co-owners will still want to protect their investments, so will often require tests to qualify. Owners may impose arbitrary conditions.
- Q: Why would owners tie their own hands in this way to forgo profit?
- A: So the physical Sources of production (such as land, water, plants, animals, buildings, tools) needed for production are available to them without paying tribute to others.
- Q: But isn't profit the prime motivator of human society?
- A: Product should be the only motivation for production.
- A: Profit measures the User's lack of Source Ownership.
- A: When Users own Sources, they own that future production without purchase.
Discussion
Patrick Anderson: It is the difficulty in organizing large collective investments that keeps Users (Consumers) from Owning the material Sources of Production.
Can we buy the land and tools to make the homes and food we need?
Can we co-own tiny private cities to ensure our future production?
Can we buy land with some % of profit, to vest to the Users who pay?