Modern ( Internet ) Dynasties ?

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/11/mark-zuckerberg-dynasty/?grcc=33333Z98

What does this have to do with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg? Well, according to the $5 billion IPO filing, legal documents give him absolute control over the post-IPO company, even beyond the grave, just like a Roman emperor. That kind of power can have unintended consequences.

[Patrick Anderson]

Hi Dante,

What group of people would you say *should* have control of Facebook?

Is there a way to define this set in a precise way, or is it just 'everybody'?

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

you mean, ideally ?

well, ideally, no one entity should have control over internet

i favour a distributed communication protocol and infrastructure

[Patrick Anderson]

>> What group of people would you say *should* have control of Facebook?

Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> you mean, ideally ?

Yes. The tricky part is how we wish it could just be a "free for
all", but without internal rules, production tends to be disrupted by
'outsiders' or 'SPAMMERS' or just generally annoying people trying to
cause trouble.

But even supposedly well-intentioned 'insiders' can cause too much
trouble for the other peers if they do not know their behavior is
unacceptable... And how are they to know without written 'rules'
(internal laws)?

The idea of 'control' is often understood to mean 'bad' because it is
so often used against us.
Property ownership is the ultimate expression of control in our world.
We are terrified of property for the same reason we are terrified of
control - because it has so often been used against us...

But if we cannot gather as groups, we will never be able to stand
against the modern feudalists who *do* know how to pool resources for
production.

> well, ideally, no one entity should have control over internet

I agree, no *one* entity, but what about subgroups - must 'control' be
fully absent?

If so, then how do we push against 'chaos', and if not, how do we
insure it is 'proper'?

I think need a list of "universal constraints" that describes how
shared-property can be 'managed' while remaining under the control of
the user-owners.

If not, then how will we insure these subgroups do not slowly morph
into yet more profiteers that want to suppress the freedom of others?

> i favour a distributed communication protocol and infrastructure

That is good for what it can accomplish, but it cannot replace all sharing.

Roads, swimming pools, work-shops, community kitchen, ISP, etc.
usually need to be co-owned by many people to achieve the
economy-of-scale needed to overgrow the current system.

For example, how would an ISP be operated; how would control be
divided-up; who would be the real owners; and how do we keep that org
from growing into the borg?

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

yes.

i like to believe we all have a potential for choice of control,

and contribute such choice for control towards a shared intention,

itself also having the choice for control,

yet not being addicted by the "need" for control.

this is how I create the main distinction, at thelevel of the awareness in which systems can be experienced.

In contrast, the current capitalist system has a "need" for control, it it wants to survive,

and if people active within it want to maintain and expand their position in it.

[Patrick Anderson]

Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> people active within it want to maintain and expand their position

How can we 'enforce' or try to 'insure' that people will not do this
within a business we co-own?

My heavy-handed 'solution' to this is to treat Product as the
Investor's Return and Profit is the Payer's Investment so the
ownership (and therefore control) of that growth is held by those
willing to work for it instead of being concentrated into the hands of
the current owners as though it were their reward for already being on
top.

How can we resist the tendency toward overaccumulation, and why would
a "Terms of Operation" for the org/business be the wrong approach (It
may be obvious to you, and sincerely want to know the disadvantages).

What would you say we can do to solve this issue?

Thanks for your help,
Patrick

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> people active within it want to maintain and expand their position

How can we 'enforce' or try to 'insure' that people will not do this
within a business we co-own?

That is a good question.

RIght now,

I am in a discussion for the set up of a business to business exchange "alliance",

building on communityforge.

http://communityforge.net/

and its drupal extension.

Within the interested partners,

I feel there are people ambitious for accumulating money and power of control through providing consultance to corporations,

and on the other hand, people interested in supporting the commons,

local exchange and community empowerment.