[p2p-research] Building Alliances
knuggy at gmail.com
Sat Nov 7 04:17:43 CET 2009
Mentioned was establishing two basic incomes simultaneously: one for the new
commons-based economy: and the other to soften the collapse of the State
onto a financial commons: weeding the kinks from newborn material wealth
generating ecologies: for the forthcoming: universal free use commons.
This way: one basic income can drop as production falls onto an alternative
and more strategic basic income as fabrication techniques are further
applied to workgroup organisations: once launched as a viable relatively
standardised model: very shortly after initiation: no income once output
exceeds use per outcome.
"L" or able labor, multiplied by, "T" or time, multiplied by, "D" or
demographic demand, minus, "P" or production technique, equals, "M" or
labor/market exchange value
(L · T · D) - P = M
To adequately argue for a post-scarcity outcome, one must prove: labor must
require zero time, or demographic demand must be fully met without labor, or
labor must not be necessary.
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 2:51 AM, Paul D. Fernhout <
pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> Respectfully, I disagree.
> It may well be a strong state that makes possible P2P. Who else is going to
> stand up to copyright barons? Who else will ensure the networks are not
> tampered with? Who else has supported some major networking inititatives?
> Who else has supported the universities that contributed?
> Well, there are who elses. :-) It's not just been the state. But the state
> has been part of it, for good or bad.
> I've paid a lot of taxes in my life. I'm not that concerned about the
> paying part. What I'm more concerned about is what do I get for them? If I
> got universal health care, universal access to high quality copyrigh-free
> digital works, and open source robotics, and maybe even a basic income for
> everyone, I'd say the money was well spent. :-)
> There is an aspect of taxes which is about leveling the playing field. That
> is one reason groups of companies even lobby for their own regulation, to
> get everyone playing together and keep senseless arms races from spiraling
> out of control. If everyone paid 33% of their income towards a universal
> basic income, then people would not have to use that for conspicuous
> consumption to compete with others, either. So, we might all be better off,
> including wealthy people who would get happier communities to live in.
> On taxes, consider:
> "A Non-Libertarian FAQ."
> # If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house,
> initiate force and put you in jail.
> This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this
> case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of "men
> with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns"
> are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. [I don't fully
> agree with this -- non-cooperation can work wonders too.] Even if
> libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", they
> would still enforce with guns.
> # Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.
> That argument and some of the following libertarian arguments are commonly
> quoted from Lysander Spooner.
> The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the
> There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract
> with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency
> and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians
> are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further
> explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you
> may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.
> Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of
> citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency
> permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take
> political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly
> common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly
> revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility
> services (such as phone and electricity), etc.
> Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a
> contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk
> out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it is a
> restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered anything. The
> restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even
> your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that?
> Create a regulation?
> All activities in a state take place within the context of a contract with
> the state. So, I think you are trying to create a false dichotomy here, an
> either/or, when you can have both, as Michel suggests.
> --Paul Fernhout
> Ryan Lanham wrote:
>> Very few people who benefit from taxes ever see them as immoral. Those
>> pay them...another story. In the end, it is a theory of
>> compulsion...coercion. As such, it cannot be reconciled with a strong P2P
>> mentality in my opinion. I think Kevin Carson has accurately recognized
>> that one cannot be for a strong state and P2P.
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Paul D. Fernhout <
>> pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
>>> I don't think redistributing tax money as a basic income so people had
>>> time to do p2p things would be immoral, because I'm coming to believe it
>>> a human right for everyone to have access to the fruits of the industrial
>>> commons (which in turn depends on the cultural commons and the land
>>> and the biospheric commons).
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the p2presearch