User Ownership

Mode of Production and ownership proposed (c. 2007) by Patrick Anderson, which is inspired by the philosophy behind the General Public License

Introduction

Richard Stallman's Ideas

The GNU GPL is very clear in its goal to insure the immaterial Means of Production (source code) should be in the hands of every User.

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 <broken link>

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.

Observations

User Ownership is a special case in economics that has some interesting properties.

• Rent does not exist when you own Land to own your home without debt.
• Profit does not exist when you own Land to own the supply-chains you need and when you trade your future work for the future work of others. In this case, you do not buy those future goods and services from anyone since you own them already, and so the price you pay as a consumer is exactly the costs you paid as a co-owner and Profit does not exist because property ownership never changes. This is full Vertical Integration.
• Just as the solitary owner of a single tree owns that fruit before it is a flower, we can own orchards to own future fruit without purchase.
• Abundance and real solutions are goal and never thought 'destructive'.
• Security through food forestry and ancient building techniques become obvious again.
• Work is not a goal, and can be safely reduced as we will own all the (predictable) future Goods we need.
• Prices can be ignored because the Good is never sold (except surplus).
• When surplus is sold, those new users must also gain the material Sources of Production (Land ownership), else the system is no longer fully owned by the Users.
• 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 disappears.

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, as a user, to Consume, especially essentials such as food and a home.

A: Work can be safely reduced when Workers (as Users) own their homes and the supply-chains producing all they need.

Q: Are you claiming unemployment is good?

A: For now it is required because we must Work to pay Rent.

A: But Rent and Profit are zero when Land is User Owned.

Q: If Profit is the problem, why do non-Profits not prevail?

A: Well, Profit is just a *symptom* of the problem.

A: The problem is property misallocation.

A: When property is properly allocated, Profit does not exist.

A: Non-Profits simply hide Profit by claiming various extra costs.

A: When Users Own Sources, they own those future Goods without purchase.

A: Profit does not exist in this scenario because the change-of-ownership at the point-of-sale is eliminated.

A: This is full vertical integration, where all transactions are change-of-custody, never a change-of-ownership.

Q: May I charge money for Free Goods?

A: Yes, the GPL is a commercial grade free (as in freedom) trade agreement.

Q: How much can I charge for a GPL Good?

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 tiller and then rent it to customers?

A: Yes, in this case the 'Good' becomes access during that rivalrous slice of time.

A: Note, to ensure all Users become Owners, each customer must gain ownership in that kind of material Source, either as sole-owner or (more often) co-owning with others who choose to co-own.

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: Profit measures the User's lack of Source Ownership.

A: Profit simply ceases to exist when Users own Sources because they no long buy those Goods late, but own them already.

A: When Users own Sources, they own future production without purchase.

Discussion

The difficulty in organizing large collective investments keeps most Users (Consumers) from owning the material Sources of Production (Land), in groups (and groups of groups, recursively) to own their homes without debt, and also to host the localized supply-chains required for essential 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?