Talk:Cooperative Public Phone Booth Model

From P2P Foundation
Revision as of 14:56, 4 August 2010 by GoodRollin (talk | contribs) (response to your comment.)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Intitial discussion about user ownership for the model

From Patrick Anderson

We read about a group of end users investing for Use-Value alone at http://P2PFoundation.net/Cooperative_Public_Phone_Booth_Model

They say these Means of Production (the phone booth) has such low maintenance that there will be no need to hire anyone to do any work.

But the initial connection of the booth to the phone company's lines must certainly have been done by a worker.

And it seems likely there will be a time in the future when some part of the phone must be serviced where none of the users has the expertise to do so.

And even if a user can be found with those skills, why should he not receive some 'extra' ownership for his exertion even if he doesn't receive a Wage?

So, in defense of the idea that production cannot be fair unless Workers have at least part of the Ownership, shouldn't those workers gain some ownership in that phone booth?

What do proponents of Worker Ownership hope to achieve for those who labor when they say User Ownership is insufficient to 'protect' those workers?

In what way is a worker "disenfranchised" when he does not have extra ownership (beyond what he needs as a user) in the Means of Production?

When the users own the Means of Production they might hire workers, especially when that labor is highly skilled.

What demands will a worker proclaim and be able to require when he has 'sufficient' ownership?

Will this ownership be used to increase his own Wage? Does that mean Worker Ownership is a form of protectionism against market-driven Wages?

If so, then why would Users choose to include workers in this way?


Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com

Reply from Alex Rollin

If it reads now that the means of production requires no workers then it is incomplete. Additionally, ownership by workers and users should be explicitly addressed. How to do so?

All workers and users should be allowed to be members of the network that governs the Common Resource. This should be made explicit. This reference should be backed up with information about how this can be handled, and this can be referenced as being explained in another page.

Because this is a model I do see some use in anticipating some of the worker relationships that would obviously come into play with regards to the Common Resource under management. The protocol for exploring these relationships could be written down generally as it would appear, from the surface, to be iterative, as their is a desired goal: namely, the opportunity for a zero threshold opportunity to exercise rights of membership in the network governing the resource.

Anticipation of particular worker motivations with regard to fairness seems better handled in another place, though I do see some value in some kind of standard protocol for fairness for workers in a p2p network that is, most likely, enacted through some protocol that is also used to handle the governance of the network itself.

I will proceed to examine the opportunity to amend the model to include the zero threshold for users and workers. In the model, IIRC, assumes that members of the network are the workers, and as they have rights through membership in governance would be able to exercise those rights as needed. The very definition of membership, as an important threshold in the evolution of a p2p network, does need to include protocol that explicitly acknowledges members as workers as owners. This is a good point and I will work on that as soon as I am able. --Alex Rollin 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)