A Practical Leap Into Open Manufacturing

[Nathan W. Cravens]

Below is an idea for a non-profit for Open Manufacture development. It
uses phones eventually distributed for free by firms, hacking them,
charging a fee, and in return, giving a few phones away to those less
fortunate and funding OM projects worldwide, primarily in this case,
working toward constructing new open phones and open communications
towers for common use for little, and eventually, no financial cost.

The overall conception provides a platform for converting a
proprietary resource into an abundant one. Its hardware like cell
phones that are becoming a more freely accessible medium, free enough
to seed OM development.

I look forward to developing this one or working with you on creating
efforts like the one described. The One Laptop per Child Project
demonstrates a working example of this sort of organizational
platform.

This could be our way in the door...

Information was at one time a scarce resource. It required huge metal
plates, paper, ink, and human labor. Written work can now be published
for zero financial cost on Google Docs. Those of us in Open
Manufacturing can easily see this movement trending in hardware as
well. AT&T Gophones, cell phones that do not require a contract, at
the time of this writing sell for as little as USD15. It is only a
matter of time before cell phones are distributed for free, beginning
with phones least expensive to manufacture. Based on recent commercial
trends in the cell phone industry, coupled with Moore's law, we will
soon witness communication hardware with even greater computational
capacity given away for free. Firms that use this sort of quasi-
freeconomic model will profit from users charged for information
services that would otherwise cost nothing. At least, they will profit
for a time.

In the next few years the Open Manufacturing community will have
available a phone like the T-Mobile G1 for zero financial cost. Such
phones will be distributed as a "Pay-As-You-Go" phone. Its only a
matter of when. Those of us in Open Manufacturing understand the
communication infrastructure costs the user nothing, it is already in
place. With a reconfigured phone, with the help of the OM network, can
perform a service to reconfigure phones into free communication
devices for free for the tech savvy or for a small fee to those not so
tech savvy or financially generous. For every phone hacked for a fee,
two more will be hacked (or as many as cost/profits allow) and donated
to third world countries for those with the communications
infrastructure available. Fees will help fund OM projects worldwide
until fees are no longer required.

We can assume companies will create firewalls and other proprietary
agents in an attempt to prevent such phones from hackdom. OM would
create an open source software, something to compete against the
proprietary features of Andriod, to prevent companies from disrupting
the rise of the freeconomic enterprise.

To prevent proprietary agency from enclosing the communication commons
physically, using the funds available from our services, community
efforts will have a cell tower construction kit either freely
available or for minimal cost online with easy to follow step by step
instructions for self sustaining communications towers that require
little to no maintenance.

We will also manufacture our own phones and have them distributed for
free. Proprietary firms will have no ability to compete in this
environment, and thus, proprietary agencies will move to something
else until our partners in the open commons movement form a means that
abandon the need for proprietary agency altogether.

When the entire globe can communicate using hardware that easily
designs other hardware in a nonproprietary manner, with OM setting a
global example, we'll be that much closer to living in a world more
free.

[ben lipkowitz]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008, Nathan W. Cravens wrote:

> AT&T Gophones, cell phones that do not require a contract, at
> the time of this writing sell for as little as USD15.

> Those of us in Open Manufacturing understand the communication

> infrastructure costs the user nothing, it is already in place.

Apparently, it costs _someone_ "as little as USD15" per phone-hour, as you
just pointed out. Someone has to maintain the phone towers, pay the
electricity bills, run the optical fibers, etc. and whether this is paid
for by advertising revenue, government subsidies, or out of the goodness
of our community hearts, TANSTAAFFL!

> the OM network, can
> perform a service to reconfigure phones into free communication
> devices for free for the tech savvy or for a small fee to those not so
> tech savvy or financially generous.

why the double standard? let the tech-savvy people do it themselves.
or perhaps you intend to sell customer service packages, ala redhat?

> For every phone hacked for a fee,
> two more will be hacked (or as many as cost/profits allow) and donated
> to third world countries for those with the communications
> infrastructure available. Fees will help fund OM projects worldwide
> until fees are no longer required.

this reeks of white guilt. instead of simply throwing money at it, why not
teach the third world people how to hack these ostensibly free-beer
phones?

> We can assume companies will create firewalls and other proprietary
> agents in an attempt to prevent such phones from hackdom. OM would
> create an open source software, something to compete against the
> proprietary features of Andriod, to prevent companies from disrupting
> the rise of the freeconomic enterprise.

more likely they will simply make the phone hardware un-hackable, or use
legislation such as the DMCA to that effect. ever tried to reverse
engineer an epoxy-blobbed custom ASIC with encrypted signals going in and
out of it? (no electron microscope, that's cheating)

> using the funds available from our services, community
> efforts will have a cell tower construction kit either freely
> available or for minimal cost online with easy to follow step by step
> instructions for self sustaining communications towers that require
> little to no maintenance.

cell phones are two-way digital radios, so why do we need towers?
assuming we are able to use the hardware to its full potential, any
inactive phone within range of a wifi access point could act as a "bridge"
to the internet (and from there, to any other phone). this situation is
analogous to p2p filesharing networks in that many people will choose not
to 'upload' in order to save battery life, not violate some petty law, or
out of general scarcity-induced spite. (stealing my bandwidth!)

> We will also manufacture our own phones and have them distributed for
> free. Proprietary firms will have no ability to compete in this
> environment, and thus, proprietary agencies will move to something
> else until our partners in the open commons movement form a means that
> abandon the need for proprietary agency altogether.

this is delusional thinking. if you can manufacture phones for free,
you've already won. picture a field full of cellphone bushes being tended
to by agricultural robots. getting to this point has nothing to do with
hacking cellphones and everything to do with basic research. half of a
half is not zero.

> When the entire globe can communicate using hardware that easily
> designs other hardware in a nonproprietary manner, with OM setting a
> global example, we'll be that much closer to living in a world more
> free.

you need to clarify your use of the term "free" as either gratis or libre.

-cranky fenn needs fifteen hours of sleep a day

[Nathan Cravens]

> AT&T Gophones, cell phones that do not require a contract, at
> the time of this writing sell for as little as USD15.

> Those of us in Open Manufacturing understand the communication
> infrastructure costs the user nothing, it is already in place.

Apparently, it costs _someone_ "as little as USD15" per phone-hour, as you
just pointed out. Someone has to maintain the phone towers, pay the
electricity bills, run the optical fibers, etc. and whether this is paid
for by advertising revenue, government subsidies, or out of the goodness
of our community hearts, TANSTAAFFL!

 

Automation is the free lunch. Flame on if you must. I'll have an argument for that too.

 

For some reason I didn't think of the legality of hacking phones when I wrote the diddy. Funny, because I had sense enough to propose a legal non-profit entity to do the hacking.

 

As the idea went, the hacking fees would go to construct free phones / ability to communicate. 

 

Giving the cell phone idea more thought, no organization needs to be formed. The tech savvy will hack the phones regardless, and the information will emerge on the internet with a way to hack the latest phone or any other "free beer" device that comes available.

 

In this manner, the true spirit of the open platform is found in distributed social networking, not the traditional trade union or charity foundational method I mused on, however greatly these methods advance the open platform. This distributed approach, fueled by the cost marginalization of various technologies will eventually dissolve the centralized, profit motive in the game of tug of war until no side must pull, because both get what they want, more or less.

 

That approach may be too passive in itself. I suspect a variety of methods will work to bring down the proprietary machine, including schemes similar to ones I've written (two on this discussion group thus far).

 

> the OM network, can
> perform a service to reconfigure phones into free communication
> devices for free for the tech savvy or for a small fee to those not so
> tech savvy or financially generous.

why the double standard? let the tech-savvy people do it themselves.
or perhaps you intend to sell customer service packages, ala redhat?

> For every phone hacked for a fee,
> two more will be hacked (or as many as cost/profits allow) and donated
> to third world countries for those with the communications
> infrastructure available. Fees will help fund OM projects worldwide
> until fees are no longer required.

this reeks of white guilt. instead of simply throwing money at it, why not
teach the third world people how to hack these ostensibly free-beer
phones?

 

Sure, teach them.

Manufacturing open phones would come after hacked phones. 

 

> When the entire globe can communicate using hardware that easily
> designs other hardware in a nonproprietary manner, with OM setting a
> global example, we'll be that much closer to living in a world more
> free.

you need to clarify your use of the term "free" as either gratis or libre.

  -cranky fenn needs fifteen hours of sleep a day

 

Free as in whatever you want free to mean, the best kind of free, whatever's most free to you. How's that? If I'm a determinist, there's no telling.

 

Now that the idea is nothing more than a bloodied corpse, what next?

 

The overall platform can work and is as follows:

 

1) Perform a service for a fee

2) Use funds to develop OM

3) Distribute OM globally without use of funds

 

I ask that you brainstorm and CONSTRUCT ideas along these lines. Or, if ideas like this are already in development, let's discuss building them up.

[Nathan Cravens]

this reeks of white guilt. instead of simply throwing money at it, why not
teach the third world people how to hack these ostensibly free-beer
phones?
 
Sure, teach them.

 

A device will be created to teach. The goal, free as in "everyone wins" free.

[Patrick Anderson]

Nathan Cravens wrote:
> Automation is the free lunch.

Nathan,

I like the idea of replacing the current mobile phone industry because
of the obvious amount of profit (price above cost) they charge for
such mediocre service.

But it confuses me greatly when people (and there are many besides
yourself) that claim manufacturing of ANY sort can occur at zero cost.

I do not see any productive activity that does not consume physical
resources. Even my typing this response requires I have my computer
on, therefore consuming electricity, wearing out the hard-drive,
filling the case with dust that will eventually cause electronic
failure; besides the recursively defined 'tree' (as opposed to a
'chain') of production it took to create all of the components so I
could originally buy the machine. These things (and there are many
more I didn't mention) are both "financial" costs to me and "real"
costs to all of us through the pollution and destruction of nature
required for the factories and mines required for that construction
and continued use.

How can automation ever lessen such costs? Wouldn't a world filled
with robots be even more financially and ecologically costly?

> The tech savvy will hack the phones regardless, and the information will
> emerge on the internet with a way to hack the latest phone or any other
> "free beer" device that comes available.

That sounds fun and useful, but where will the hackers get the
physical equipment required to do such hacking?

I'm not trying to be sour, I'm just asking about the logistics.

The reason I focus so much on the economic side of things when
studying these issues is because it appears to me what society lacks
is a way to share access to Land and Capital that is otherwise too
expensive (or even meaningless) to own individually.

So if we (a large group of dissatisfied cell-phone users) could get
together and agree to co-own the factories, farms, mines, signal
towers, even the electric and fuel plants in a cooperative manner -
then at least we could get the product "at cost".

It seems to me "at cost" can never be zero, but that is OK.

Getting anything "at cost" is much MUCH better than the current
situation we are in where we pay those same costs AND we pay profit to
the owners for no other reason than we are not the owners.

> This distributed approach, fueled by the cost marginalization of various
> technologies will eventually dissolve the centralized, profit motive in the
> game of tug of war until no side must pull, because both get what they want,
> more or less.

What do you mean by the word 'profit'? Are you talking about the
difference between Owner_Costs and Consumer_Price?

> The overall platform can work and is as follows:
>
> 1) Perform a service for a fee
> 2) Use funds to develop OM
> 3) Distribute OM globally without use of funds
>

I agree we will need to charge fees to begin such an operation.

Where I differ is the idea that we can ever stop charging fees. But I
don't see that as a problem.

Charging "at cost" fees is much closer to "free as in beer" than paying profit.

Maybe when you say "Free" you are talking about eventually eliminating
profit? If so, then I mostly agree.

Sincerely,
Patrick

{
I say "mostly" agree because I see profit to be a measure of each
consumer's lack of ownership that should be handled as an investment
from that same consumer - so that each 'outside' or non-owning
consumer gains ownership whenever he pays price above cost. He would
be gaining ownership for the sole purpose of eventually receiving "at
cost" product.

By organizing in this way, profit will approach zero as the ownership
of the Land and Capital required for whatever production a group is
involved in approaches 'perfect'.

But, since groups are dynamic in many ways, I see profit never quite
disappearing - even if the population of the earth were to somehow
become constant.

Since profit is a measure of the need for growth for *that* consumer
in *that* industry, and consumer choices are always in flux, (I may
like peaches now, but maybe I will like them less in the future while
liking pears more) so that a consumer's desire for some product for
which they do not yet have sufficient ownership in those physical
sources will cause them to pay profit for the purpose of their
personal growth in that direction.

Treating profit as an investment from the consumer who paid it is
self-balancing but not static.
}

[Nathan Cravens]

I like the idea of replacing the current mobile phone industry because
of the obvious amount of profit (price above cost) they charge for
such mediocre service.

But it confuses me greatly when people (and there are many besides
yourself) that claim manufacturing of ANY sort can occur at zero cost.

I do not see any productive activity that does not consume physical
resources.  Even my typing this response requires I have my computer
on, therefore consuming electricity, wearing out the hard-drive,
filling the case with dust that will eventually cause electronic
failure; besides the recursively defined 'tree' (as opposed to a
'chain') of production it took to create all of the components so I
could originally buy the machine.  These things (and there are many
more I didn't mention) are both "financial" costs to me and "real"
costs to all of us through the pollution and destruction of nature
required for the factories and mines required for that construction
and continued use.

 

Yes. I do believe systems will be made to make items for zero financial cost. I also suspect physical costs will be treated as free on an item to item basis when aquisition of physical resources and assemblies are further automated, self sustained, and ecologically indifferent. I assume energy is captured rather than consumed or destroyed. Because of the limited ability to capture energy, there's wasteful cycles of production and consumption that has erected a market based model. These representations are rapidly becoming obsolete. Its a matter of manufacturing with materials already available or thrown away in landfills. Current engineering methods need to better develop to recaputure energy after use to perform another task, or at least, reduce ecological harm to a minimum with use. Cradle to Cradle Design is one model for acheiving action without waste. 

How can automation ever lessen such costs?  Wouldn't a world filled
with robots be even more financially and ecologically costly?

 

Robotics constructed of biological matter able to self repair would not be financially or ecologically costly.

 

Do we have robotics able to parse out useful materials from dump sites? After searching for "robots landfill" there were many pages on Transformers (ha!). Now its just a matter of transforming landfills and other things that normally go to waste into something both useful and ecologically sound. Soylent Green provides a fine dystopian example not to follow.

 

Dumpster diving robots. In a market economy, the cost of manufacturing the robot would have to ensure that it more than pay for itself in materials sold from its landfill collection efforts.

 

> The tech savvy will hack the phones regardless, and the information will
> emerge on the internet with a way to hack the latest phone or any other
> "free beer" device that comes available.

That sounds fun and useful, but where will the hackers get the
physical equipment required to do such hacking?

I'm not trying to be sour, I'm just asking about the logistics.

The reason I focus so much on the economic side of things when
studying these issues is because it appears to me what society lacks
is a way to share access to Land and Capital that is otherwise too
expensive (or even meaningless) to own individually.

So if we (a large group of dissatisfied cell-phone users) could get
together and agree to co-own the factories, farms, mines, signal
towers, even the electric and fuel plants in a cooperative manner -
then at least we could get the product "at cost".

It seems to me "at cost" can never be zero, but that is OK.

Getting anything "at cost" is much MUCH better than the current
situation we are in where we pay those same costs AND we pay profit to
the owners for no other reason than we are not the owners.

 

I'm glad you brought up the economic issues. It seems those of dependent Industrialised societies will be forced to acquire an ownership based economy before long.

 

Labor markets and the debt markets dependant on wages are collapsing in the U.S. and Europe, the founders of the Industrial enterprise. Lenders and investors have the conception that minimum payments are made forever without taking into account the many that eventually stop paying as labor value diminishes from continued deskilling and automation (both physically and intellectually). Putting food on the table comes before paying the bills. The most volatile debt markets are failing, no doubt others are to follow.    

 

Its difficult to tell how many markets must fail for those in government to erect a Basic Income. There's no talk of it in Washington yet. Even when a BI comes available, this will only be short term, perhaps lasting several decades at best to continue financial circulation until all markets and the scarcities that base them are collapsed. Finance represents dependence and waste. Resources will be measured more accurately than the haze of finance and commodity speculation presently depicts. More accurate representations of the world will come into play here, models that show, for example, how much oil is actually in the ground and how we have no need for it. These maps will show how destructive lives were, but also, how we can best present what resources are available already, like the ones previously mined from the earth idle in a trash heap somewhere.

 

Here's a prototype of a cyclic model that depicts some of my working assumptions in these matters: A Cyclical Representation of the Human Enterprise (http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg2jzdft_80cc68szd7)

Nathan

[Bryan Bishop]

On Sunday 28 September 2008, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> Nathan Cravens wrote:
> > Automation is the free lunch.
>
> Nathan,
>
> I like the idea of replacing the current mobile phone industry
> because of the obvious amount of profit (price above cost) they
> charge for such mediocre service.
>
> But it confuses me greatly when people (and there are many besides
> yourself) that claim manufacturing of ANY sort can occur at zero
> cost.
>
> I do not see any productive activity that does not consume physical
> resources. Even my typing this response requires I have my computer
> on, therefore consuming electricity, wearing out the hard-drive,
> filling the case with dust that will eventually cause electronic
> failure; besides the recursively defined 'tree' (as opposed to a
> 'chain') of production it took to create all of the components so I
> could originally buy the machine. These things (and there are many
> more I didn't mention) are both "financial" costs to me and "real"
> costs to all of us through the pollution and destruction of nature
> required for the factories and mines required for that construction
> and continued use.

I'll take this one, Patrick. Money is our construction. Why would you
want to make up "money" for material resources that you come across?
Resources are always the exception to the rule in formal economic
classes in our education systems -- it's always shown that resources
are an unpredictable thingy and thus eternally fueling their weird
economic minds. Heh. Physical resources I can agree with you, but the
financial costs crap, sorry. That's just people saying "I was here
first! Ha ha! Now give me a bajillion dollars."

> How can automation ever lessen such costs? Wouldn't a world filled
> with robots be even more financially and ecologically costly?

No.

> > The tech savvy will hack the phones regardless, and the information
> > will emerge on the internet with a way to hack the latest phone or
> > any other "free beer" device that comes available.
>
> That sounds fun and useful, but where will the hackers get the
> physical equipment required to do such hacking?

Dumpsters around their city. Seriously. [Okay, okay, I'd rather have
access to physical mines at the moment too, but alas I suspect you're
not looking for my drawn out answers.]

> I'm not trying to be sour, I'm just asking about the logistics.

Right.

> The reason I focus so much on the economic side of things when
> studying these issues is because it appears to me what society lacks
> is a way to share access to Land and Capital that is otherwise too
> expensive (or even meaningless) to own individually.

"The Man Who Owned the Moon". Meh. I don't have an answer yet to this.
Part of the problem is the "early bird gets the worm" problem. The "I
was here first" problem. Also the fact that some materials are more of
a one-time use thing. How terrible it would be if somebody suddenly
took the silicon from your computer - yikes. So much for that uptime
you were accumulating, that rock-solid nine nine's. Yet clearly, the
current system is also incorrect. This is in part why I consider
sustaining communities that come across resources (say, an asteroid)
and live off of it *by knowing* their constraints on their logistics.
Then it's up to them as a group, as a small group, capable of actually
understanding each other, what they want to do with it. On a large
scale though, like in our current situation, the snowball has already
passed for mining operations mostly, not to mention that theoretical
maximum demand for resources simply can't be met (too many people). So
this is a complex problem. I don't expect to lose the war with it,
though.

I wish I had a lightning bolt so that I could strike each of you down
when you mention "ownership" and "profit". Seriously. You're hurting
me.

- Bryan
________________________________________
http://heybryan.org/
Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html
irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap

[Patrick Anderson]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Money is our construction.

Do you mean that we will use money for the construction of Open
Manufacturing? If so, then I agree; we must work within the current
system, and begging the current rulers to change is not going to work.

> Why would you
> want to make up "money" for material resources that you come across?

"Make up money"? I did not say that, and do not know what you mean.
I don't want to "make up money", I want to work within the current
system to overgrow the feudalists that keep us from success.

Currency is useful for specialization. How will you get beer at the
end of a hectic day of building robots? Will we each be forced to
make our own beer? Must I be my own dentist? Can you be your own
heart or brain surgeon?

> Resources are always the exception to the rule in formal economic
> classes in our education systems -- it's always shown that resources
> are an unpredictable thingy and thus eternally fueling their weird
> economic minds.

Sorry, but again I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying
Land and Capital are unimportant? Where will you stand to build
robots, and where will you put them once they are complete?

Do you think your national government is going to hand over those
resources to you?

Do you thing you can get to outer-space without factories to build the
rockets and support equipment? Even if you do, don't you suppose many
companies and corporations have already laid claim to vast quantities
of space that they will defend with missiles?

> Heh. Physical resources I can agree with you, but the
> financial costs crap, sorry. That's just people saying "I was here
> first! Ha ha! Now give me a bajillion dollars."

It sounds like you are talking about the perpetuation of profit
(keeping price above cost) which I agree is 'crap'. Usury is a filthy
way to misuse resources for the purpose of concentrating wealth. But
that is not the only direction an owner can drive.

Just as Richard Stallman's GNU GPL utilizes Copyright to restrict
power, we can use Property Rights. We can buy and own, but then use a
contract to treat those physical sources in an analogous manner to
Copyleft. It will be Property Left.

I'm talking about what it will take for us to have dominion over the
Land and Capital NECESSARY for whatever production we intend.

We can simply purchase that Land and Capital with Federal Reserve
Notes. Yes, we will overpay initially, but then we will OWN them, and
can then treat them appropriately (instead of becoming usurists
relying on scarcity, we can cooperate to become userists relying on
abundance).

>
>> How can automation ever lessen such costs? Wouldn't a world filled
>> with robots be even more financially and ecologically costly?
>
> No.

Oh.

>> The reason I focus so much on the economic side of things when
>> studying these issues is because it appears to me what society lacks
>> is a way to share access to Land and Capital that is otherwise too
>> expensive (or even meaningless) to own individually.
>
> "The Man Who Owned the Moon". Meh. I don't have an answer yet to this.

Hmm?

> Part of the problem is the "early bird gets the worm" problem. The "I
> was here first" problem.

Yes, usurists rape us continually from all sides. That is why we must
OWN or BE OWNED!

How else do you expect to aquire the Land and Capital you *must* have
in order to build the machines you dream of?

> This is in part why I consider
> sustaining communities that come across resources (say, an asteroid)
> and live off of it *by knowing* their constraints on their logistics.
> Then it's up to them as a group, as a small group, capable of actually
> understanding each other, what they want to do with it.

The reason the resources of Earth are mistreated is because the
unnatural, suicidal and insane goal of perpetual profit (usury) causes
those corporations to seek scarcity and destruction because profit is
directly related to scarcity while being inversely related to
abundance.

But profit is not a societal need in itself. It is simply a measure
of consumer dependence upon the current owners, and can be balanced by
treating it as an investment in more physical sources from the
consumer who paid it.

Once we each have enough ownership to 'protect' ourselves from each
other, usury will be outperformed because when the object consumer is
also the source owner, price == cost and profit == 0.

> On a large
> scale though, like in our current situation, the snowball has already
> passed for mining operations mostly, not to mention that theoretical
> maximum demand for resources simply can't be met (too many people).

Malthus was wrong. This planet could support orders of magnitude more
humans than it does if we would stop dumping all of our fresh water on
worthless, shit sod and start growing permaculture in our cities
instead of the valueless ornamental trash our 1st world nations are
full of. Why not grow Almonds along Main Street instead of barren
waste?

But that will not happen until we organize in a manner that allows for
maximum divisibility (secession) and until the taxing of land is
weighted against holding (as Henry George) instead of punishing
improvements. (Though I have an even looser plan that achieves the
same goal without centralizing those funds.)

> I wish I had a lightning bolt so that I could strike each of you down
> when you mention "ownership" and "profit". Seriously. You're hurting
> me.

Are you saying ownership and profit are inherently evil?

It benefits the corporate monsters for us to believe that we should
not own, and that profit could never be treated correctly.

Don't you OWN some personal items? Would you care if I stole your
soldering iron? What about your car, or your computer? What if I
burned your house to the ground? If you think we should not OWN, then
you must not care if I take what is yours, right?

Patrick

[Bryan Bishop]

On Sunday 28 September 2008, Patrick Anderson wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> > > > Money is our construction.
>
> Do you mean that we will use money for the construction of Open
> Manufacturing? If so, then I agree; we must work within the current
> system, and begging the current rulers to change is not going to
> work.

No. I mean that 'money' is a human concept, it's something that we can
change. Why do you insist on working with money? It only tends to be
limiting you from doing things.

> > Why would you
> > want to make up "money" for material resources that you come
> > across?
>
> "Make up money"? I did not say that, and do not know what you mean.
> I don't want to "make up money", I want to work within the current
> system to overgrow the feudalists that keep us from success.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would you want to instantiate a system
with money involved, or even deal with it when it makes everything that
much harder?

> Currency is useful for specialization. How will you get beer at the
> end of a hectic day of building robots? Will we each be forced to
> make our own beer? Must I be my own dentist? Can you be your own
> heart or brain surgeon?

None of those necessitate currency.

> > Resources are always the exception to the rule in formal economic
> > classes in our education systems -- it's always shown that
> > resources are an unpredictable thingy and thus eternally fueling
> > their weird economic minds.
>
> Sorry, but again I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying
> Land and Capital are unimportant? Where will you stand to build
> robots, and where will you put them once they are complete?

No. Nevermind.

> Do you think your national government is going to hand over those
> resources to you?

Meh. There are other places with material resources in the galaxy. It's
a huge pain in the ass.

> Do you thing you can get to outer-space without factories to build
> the rockets and support equipment? Even if you do, don't you suppose
> many companies and corporations have already laid claim to vast
> quantities of space that they will defend with missiles?

Already?

> > Heh. Physical resources I can agree with you, but the
> > financial costs crap, sorry. That's just people saying "I was here
> > first! Ha ha! Now give me a bajillion dollars."
>
> It sounds like you are talking about the perpetuation of profit
> (keeping price above cost) which I agree is 'crap'. Usury is a
> filthy way to misuse resources for the purpose of concentrating
> wealth. But that is not the only direction an owner can drive.

No, I'm talking about the problem of having the concepts of ownership
(versus no ownership) and so on. Allocation problems. Part of the issue
is that you *must* 'own' resources otherwise they take parts from your
machines and what then? They fail to work. See my other emails re:
there being a finite number of niches. (Did I not send that one? Oops.)

> Just as Richard Stallman's GNU GPL utilizes Copyright to restrict
> power, we can use Property Rights. We can buy and own, but then use
> a contract to treat those physical sources in an analogous manner to
> Copyleft. It will be Property Left.

Uh, and when the Indians walk in and take the gears from your factories,
how's that working out for you? I don't think the problem is resolved.

> >> The reason I focus so much on the economic side of things when
> >> studying these issues is because it appears to me what society
> >> lacks is a way to share access to Land and Capital that is
> >> otherwise too expensive (or even meaningless) to own individually.
> >
> > "The Man Who Owned the Moon". Meh. I don't have an answer yet to
> > this.
>
> Hmm?

It's the story of a man who got to the moon first and declared it,
thusly, his. Hands off. Rawr. My moon, not yours.

> > Part of the problem is the "early bird gets the worm" problem. The
> > "I was here first" problem.
>
> Yes, usurists rape us continually from all sides. That is why we
> must OWN or BE OWNED!

But that doesn't make any sense. :( There's not a single owner entity
that we all collaborate with. And don't cite me representative
democracy crap, I'll just throw Godel at you (he's in my closet).

> How else do you expect to aquire the Land and Capital you *must* have
> in order to build the machines you dream of?

By physically *gong out and getting it*. How else? Magic?

> > On a large
> > scale though, like in our current situation, the snowball has
> > already passed for mining operations mostly, not to mention that
> > theoretical maximum demand for resources simply can't be met (too
> > many people).
>
> Malthus was wrong. This planet could support orders of magnitude
> more humans than it does if we would stop dumping all of our fresh
> water on worthless, shit sod and start growing permaculture in our
> cities instead of the valueless ornamental trash our 1st world
> nations are full of. Why not grow Almonds along Main Street instead
> of barren waste?

I don't care. There's a finite limit.

> But that will not happen until we organize in a manner that allows
> for maximum divisibility (secession) and until the taxing of land is
> weighted against holding (as Henry George) instead of punishing
> improvements. (Though I have an even looser plan that achieves the
> same goal without centralizing those funds.)

What are you on? When did taxes get into this crap?

> > I wish I had a lightning bolt so that I could strike each of you
> > down when you mention "ownership" and "profit". Seriously. You're
> > hurting me.
>
> Are you saying ownership and profit are inherently evil?

Nah, I'm just saying they don't quite make sense.

> Don't you OWN some personal items? Would you care if I stole your
> soldering iron? What about your car, or your computer? What if I
> burned your house to the ground? If you think we should not OWN,
> then you must not care if I take what is yours, right?

Whether or not I have a psychological knee-jerk reaction doesn't tell me
about the effectiveness of the system to respond to situations like
that.

[Patrick Anderson]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 28 September 2008, Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
>> > > > Money is our construction.
>>
>> Do you mean that we will use money for the construction of Open
>> Manufacturing? If so, then I agree; we must work within the current
>> system, and begging the current rulers to change is not going to
>> work.
>
> No. I mean that 'money' is a human concept, it's something that we can
> change.

Oh, I see, you are saying "we constructed money".

> Why do you insist on working with money? It only tends to be
> limiting you from doing things.

Because I need Land and Capital, and the only realistic way I see of
obtaining it is by exchanging it with the current owners for Federal
Reserve Notes. I will try another approach, if there is one. What do
you propose?

>> > Why would you
>> > want to make up "money" for material resources that you come
>> > across?
>>
>> "Make up money"? I did not say that, and do not know what you mean.
>> I don't want to "make up money", I want to work within the current
>> system to overgrow the feudalists that keep us from success.
>
> That doesn't make any sense. Why would you want to instantiate a system
> with money involved, or even deal with it when it makes everything that
> much harder?

To BUY the Land and Capital we need.

>
>> Currency is useful for specialization. How will you get beer at the
>> end of a hectic day of building robots? Will we each be forced to
>> make our own beer? Must I be my own dentist? Can you be your own
>> heart or brain surgeon?
>
> None of those necessitate currency.

It is true that currency is not *required*, it only makes trade
easier, and trade IS required for specialization.

I'm willing to give-up on making a new currency if there is another
way. Barter is too clumsy.

Any ideas? (and please don't say "we will all just be nice to each other")

> Part of the issue
> is that you *must* 'own' resources otherwise they take parts from your
> machines and what then? They fail to work. See my other emails re:
> there being a finite number of niches. (Did I not send that one? Oops.)

Did you just say we NEED ownership?

>> Just as Richard Stallman's GNU GPL utilizes Copyright to restrict
>> power, we can use Property Rights. We can buy and own, but then use
>> a contract to treat those physical sources in an analogous manner to
>> Copyleft. It will be Property Left.
>
> Uh, and when the Indians walk in and take the gears from your factories,
> how's that working out for you? I don't think the problem is resolved.

Indians? Are you talking about a repressed part of the society?

If so, then what I see as defense against that is to design an
inclusive system that helps anyone that comes into contact with it the
opportunity to advance for themselves to the point where theft is not
worth the trouble.

When I say 'trouble' I am talking about causing discomfort to anyone
who takes or ruins my stuff (or 'our' stuff in the case of collective
holdings) through privately hired security similar I suppose to what
the Libertarians propose - though I'm certainly no "Free Trade"
adherent. What we need is "Freedom Trade", and we can't rely on any
putrid, corporate run government to supply us with such, so must do it
for ourselves with our own property.

>
>> >> The reason I focus so much on the economic side of things when
>> >> studying these issues is because it appears to me what society
>> >> lacks is a way to share access to Land and Capital that is
>> >> otherwise too expensive (or even meaningless) to own individually.
>> >
>> > "The Man Who Owned the Moon". Meh. I don't have an answer yet to
>> > this.
>>
>> Hmm?
>
> It's the story of a man who got to the moon first and declared it,
> thusly, his. Hands off. Rawr. My moon, not yours.

Sounds like a feudalist/usurist stance, which is only ONE way in which
property can be governed. What I propose is not such.

>
>> > Part of the problem is the "early bird gets the worm" problem. The
>> > "I was here first" problem.
>>
>> Yes, usurists rape us continually from all sides. That is why we
>> must OWN or BE OWNED!
>
> But that doesn't make any sense. :( There's not a single owner entity
> that we all collaborate with.

WE MUST BUY FOR OURSELVES!

Do you hear me? We must purchase these physical sources, and then
treat them correctly.

Yes, there is no "single owner entity" YET. We must construct one by
purchasing what we need and then treating it in a reverent manner that
preserves freedom for every user by constraining the power of those
that were "there first".

We must BUY or we will DIE!

> And don't cite me representative
> democracy crap, I'll just throw Godel at you (he's in my closet).

For the sake of Krist. I've said many times the corporatistic pigs in
power WILL NOT help. I know that. That is why we must do this for
ourselves through the avenue that they allow = joint private property
ownership.

>
>> How else do you expect to aquire the Land and Capital you *must* have
>> in order to build the machines you dream of?
>
> By physically *gong out and getting it*. How else? Magic?

Are you talking about stealing Land and Capital? I think you will
soon be locked in a box for such aggression.

>> Malthus was wrong.

> There's a finite limit.

I agree.

>> But that will not happen until we organize in a manner that allows
>> for maximum divisibility (secession) and until the taxing of land is
>> weighted against holding (as Henry George) instead of punishing
>> improvements. (Though I have an even looser plan that achieves the
>> same goal without centralizing those funds.)
>
> What are you on? When did taxes get into this crap?

The current purported reason for taxes in a government is to pay for
the real costs of co-owned resources.

But rent (not economic-rent, but "at cost" rent) serves the same
purpose of paying for joint resources, but in a manner that allows
full secession.

For example, let's say you and I and 98 other people co-own a machine
that was too expensive for each of us to purchase separately.

Even after we have paid-off the initial purchase price, there will be
recurring costs for storage, repair, inputs, etc.

Each of us will need to pay the collective others periodically for
recurring costs caused by time alone.

Each person will also need to pay EXTRA whenever he uses the machine
because of extra wear we inflict upon it.

And there is also the cost of exclusion that will be caused whenever
demand is high for any one time-slot. I see this being solved through
auction, and by treating that over-payment (price above cost, or
'profit') as an investment from the user who paid it (the winning
bidder) will solve the problem by incrementally purchasing another
machine. This makes sense because the auction proved that peak demand
was not being met by just one machine.

All three of these are costs, and all three can be paid as 'rent' or
as 'tax', but 'rent' is much better because then the user only pays if
he really wants the output of that machine instead of be coerced into
paying for something that he has not interest in (which occurs when
paying the bills as a 'tax' because it all goes into a slush-fund that
so-called representatives then dole out as they please).

>
>> > I wish I had a lightning bolt so that I could strike each of you
>> > down when you mention "ownership" and "profit". Seriously. You're
>> > hurting me.
>>
>> Are you saying ownership and profit are inherently evil?
>
> Nah, I'm just saying they don't quite make sense.

The way Capitalists (Feudalists) use ownership and profit against us
does not make sense. But owners can choose to act differently.

But non-owners cannot act differently, and will have no say at all
unless they OWN, because only OWNers rule.

Owners can apply any arbitrary rule they see fit, whereas non-owners
will only continue to beg and wish.

[Nathan Cravens]

Because the title has changed, I'm going to go more reflective and general in approach. Forgive my lack of particularity here, if you must.

I don't much like the idea of ownership either, at least in the way it is generally used. This I assume is why we are attracted to a way of making outside the realms of capitalism.

For the record, Open Manufacturing is post-capitalist in nature, however greatly dependent we are on the means of capitalistic toil at present. I think we all get that, are well understood of this, but I thought to say it for sake of clarity.

Now to say it again, differently, for the heck of it. The goal is to make something everyone can have. I can have what I have and you can have what you have, without needing what I have to make what you have. There are no haves and have nots. Ownership turns into a softer meaning of simple possession.

People will still want to live in a house where those who come to visit play by the house person's rules, yet in post-scarcity, hardly anyone will want to play with such a personality. In the past they had to--or at least thought they had to--in order to live and be accepted within the 'civil' life. The house is a representation of society, as if beating a dying horse, many in the house still demand and chant without end, "go to school, get a job." The louder the chant rings through the halls, the more it signifies the words are losing their meaning. The activities that once produced a materially fruitful life no longer hold true as much as they once had. So too are the realms in which the owner of the house can tell you what you can and cannot do. Its becoming, even, more "profitable" to let you do as you will within the house. Just stay in that room over there... 

With Android, Google can continue to bank by competing with the iPhone, with developers working for the free, but this method can only hold steam for so long. A GNU or "free as in everyone wins free" cell phone project, an OpenCom, if such a project is not already underway, will trump Android. Hardware manufactured will use a more universal wireless protocol. The hardware will come from the corporate base at first to play the game in its last few rounds. The OpenCom will be the software that Skype once was to make voice and video communications free. The Internet, also free, will be more informative and accessible from a computationally competent portable device. What do you need? It can show you step by step just how to make it, whether in Sub Sahara Africa or Antarctica, the materials are available to make what's required.

Why work for someone to get what you want if you already have what it is you want without slaving away? We're quickly approaching this once dreamed of ability. We're making it happen because we see already what has already happened.   

The rest is fuzzy. How do we get from here to there? We agree we'll be there soon. Just collaborate, make, and so on. That's happening, now to refine. Good, that's happening too. Next? Clearly, if anything is clear: there is no one way.

So let's jump ahead for fun. Need dental work? Have heart problems? There's no need to see a doctor or a dentist if a device is constructed to perform the tasks of the doctor or the dentist or whatever it is that one would like. Speaking in such a manner is not very useful for our purposes however, because we still depend on humans with expertise to perform heart surgery or dental work, but we can see too that the tools that are used to perform are performing more and more of the functions of the expert. Till the day comes when the university is no longer required for vocational purpose, ownership and profits will still very much be in our vocabulary until Do-It-Itself everything is a normality, if not one quickly approaching.

Scarcity demands ownership and with ownership comes competition, and if too scarce, war. Abundance once had is usually quickly taken for granted, and other scarcities, perhaps once overlooked, come into view.

Future generations will want even more Open than Open-Open. Two universes for every garage! What a challenge!

That's my three wooden nickles and four shiny clam shells for this conversation. Put that in the bank. Chick-ching! Profit, ownership. I share your pain when hearing or using these words, Bryan.  When observed its utter transparency and its clown-like phantasm, there are times I cannot help but become filled with its silliness and explode into laughter.

Now on to more pressing affairs! Chick-ching!!

Nathan

[Josef Davies-Coates]

2008/9/28 Patrick Anderson <agnu...@gmail.com>

Do you think your national government is going to hand over those
resources to you?

This has sort of happened in Cuba. Because it had to, or they would've starved.

When the USSR collapsed Cuba lost is source of cheap oil (like we're all beginning to do now) and went through a "special period" during which time Cubans lost a third of their body weight on average. The only way to solve the situation was to say to people "you can have access to land for free so long as your farm it sustainably for food"

See http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php

Was on google video but gone again. Sigh. Guess you'll just have to download it.
http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/1777/Power-Of-Community

We can simply purchase that Land and Capital with Federal Reserve
Notes.  Yes, we will overpay initially, but then we will OWN them, and
can then treat them appropriately (instead of becoming usurists
relying on scarcity, we can cooperate to become userists relying on
abundance).

This is the Ecological Land Co-operative's plan:
http://ecologicalland.coop

How else do you expect to aquire the Land and Capital you *must* have
in order to build the machines you dream of?

Another option is to simply take it like MST have done in Brazil and squatters do around the world and the diggers done in UK history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landless_Workers%27_Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers

If you can, help save one of London's finest squats:
http://www.spikesurplus.org/

Josef

--
Josef Davies-Coates
07974 88 88 95
http://uniteddiversity.com
Together We Have Everything

[Josef Davies-Coates]

2008/9/28 Bryan Bishop <kan...@gmail.com>

That doesn't make any sense. Why would you want to instantiate a system
with money involved, or even deal with it when it makes everything that
much harder?

Money is nothing but an agreement, between a community, to use something as a means of exchange.

In my book, if its a freely chosen and explict agreement then its all good.

Problem with money as we most commonly know it today is that its an implicit coerced agreement.

Money/ agreements can actually make things a lot easier.

 

> Currency is useful for specialization.  How will you get beer at the

> end of a hectic day of building robots?  Will we each be forced to
> make our own beer?  Must I be my own dentist?  Can you be your own
> heart or brain surgeon?

None of those necessitate currency.

True, but currency (as in an agreed means of exchange between a community) could surely help facilitate such activities, no?

For example, LETS and Timebanks can't change the world by themselves and don't tend to scale too well, but I know from experience that they can help to rebuild a bit of the community cohesion and trust that facilitates mutual exchange. In fact, some do so well they make themselves obsolete by creating a real community that goes beyond mere reciprocal trade.

> How else do you expect to aquire the Land and Capital you *must* have
> in order to build the machines you dream of?

By physically *gong out and getting it*. How else? Magic?

Glad you brought that up again because when I just mentioned MST, squatting, and diggers I forget to mention The Take: Occupy. Resist. Produce. Great video about ex-workers reoccupying their abandoned factories and running them as co-ops. Inspiring stuff. And there are lots of them. And they are organising :)

http://uniteddiversity.com/the-take/
http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/70/The-Take

The whole "solidarity economy" is massive in Latin America.
http://delicious.com/uniteddiversity/solidarity+economy

Josef.

[Josef Davies-Coates]

2008/9/28 Patrick Anderson <agnu...@gmail.com>

>> How else do you expect to aquire the Land and Capital you *must* have
>> in order to build the machines you dream of?
>
> By physically *gong out and getting it*. How else? Magic?

Are you talking about stealing Land and Capital?  I think you will
soon be locked in a box for such aggression.

Patrick, whilst I agree that this is likely and often happens, it is not always true. Indeed I know many squatters in London who has come to mutually advantageous relationships with landowners. And some of them actually prefer this situation to actually "owning" and all bureaucratic, legal and tax implications inherent in ownership.

Moreover, having a legal title to a bit of land when a state has collapsed (as more and more states are doing) or corrupted beyond normal keeping up appearance levels of justice and rule of law, doesn't really help when there is someone is trying to forcefully move you one.

If both cases, actually being on the land in great numbers seems to help.

Still, I agree that a sensible plan for the here and now is to pool resources (sometimes, perhaps often in US, UK etc, money) to acquire land (sometimes by "legally" purchasing it).

That is why I am a big supporter of the Ecological Land Co-op and other similar project and efforts, of which there are many (e.g. every single ecovillage and intentional community).

Of course, ownership isn't the right word really. Stewardship is better but rather arrogant on the part of humans (land doesn't need us to steward it). Can we think of a better word?

Josef.

[Michael William Harris]

>In my book, if its a freely chosen and explict agreement >then its all good.
>
>Problem with money as we most commonly know it today is that >its an implicit
>coerced agreement.

I agree with Gerald Cohen on this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Cohen

Even if transactions aren't coerced there are still three opportunities for freedom to be infringed upon.

First, all parties aren't necessarily informed of the consequences of the transaction.

Second, third parties can be affected by the transactions of others. When someone accumulates large amounts of money they don't necessarily spend it all on flat screens and pools. Luxury isn't separated from power with currency, and one could buy all of the apartments in an area and charge outrageous prices (sure, anti-inflation laws, but there are other examples).

Third, if you have people A-Z and the transactions of A-Y cause Z to have to choose between death and starvation, that is generally considered a bad thing, and will inevitably occur in a capitalist system. Of course, these are just arguments against a capitalist system, maybe you want to use currency in a different system.

And those three arguments are just assuming a zero-sum system; there are plenty more as soon as abundance is prevalent.

Also may I assume from the these two lines that you are a libertarian who thinks taxes are stealing because not everyone has agreed to the social contract?

>Problem with money as we most commonly know it today is that >its an implicit

I have plenty of arguments against that, particularly good old John Rawls.

-Mike Harris

[Josef Davies-Coates]

2008/9/30 Michael William Harris <Michael.W...@colorado.edu>

Of course, these are just arguments against a capitalist system, maybe you want to use currency in a different system.

Yes, exactly.

(sometimes) I like to think of 3 interconnected economies:

Abundant/ Gift
Sufficient/ Mutual
Scarce/ Competitive

Also may I assume from the these two lines that you are a libertarian who thinks taxes are stealing because not everyone has agreed to the social contract?

Well, sort of, yes. I don't like to put myself  boxes with a labels, but yes "no taxation without representation" is too weak. No taxation without 100% participative budgets would be better.

Still, however crude, inefficient (in that it could obviously be improved, not necessarily because its state and not market etc. blah) and immoral the existing tax system is, I like that I get free health care because of it so I don't campaign for less taxes. But then again I don't really campaign against anything because I feel my energy could be better used doing something more productive.

>Problem with money as we most commonly know it today is that >its an implicit

I have plenty of arguments against that, particularly good old John Rawls.

I did a bit of Rawls at Uni. Fun thought experiments, but remind me how it ties in here?

Cheers,

Josef.

[Nathan Cravens]

Here's a simple political format:

1. Consensus
2. Disagree?
3. Start anew.
4. Most attractive wins

Too simple? Don't like this one? Name a preferred political format. What's done that works? Make it more attractive. I'd like to see it simple, because politics are often made complicated intentionally for obvious reasons. 

[Mike Harris]

> existing tax system is, I like that I get free health care because of it so
> I don't campaign for less taxes.

Ah, I'm guessing you don't live in the US then. Actually, I have much
fewer objections to a system that provides a minimum standard of
living.

> Abundant/ Gift
> Sufficient/ Mutual
> Scarce/ Competitive

Well, then you get farms that are automated and farmers that are out
of the job, while computer manufacturers are still making money for a
century before those can be made for free. I usually assume that you
would have to make the transition to post scarcity all at once to
avoid this; but I'd like to hear some of the details of how they could
interconnect.

It seems to me like you inevitably come to the same old problem: an
industry is eliminated/automated but capitalism has no idea how to
distribute that wealth. Rather than letting people work shorter days,
the profit goes toward making products more elaborate, with more
"fluff" during production, and instilling artificial need in people
with commercials, etc. And the workers for said industry are out of
the job, the money goes to the shareholders who reinvest it, thus the
mechanism that creates fluff and artificial needs.

>I did a bit of Rawls at Uni. Fun thought experiments, but remind me how it
>ties in here?

Rawls had a fairly eloquent argument for why people could be expected
to agree with the social contract in a zero-sum system, and I maintain
that Cohen's arguments would still be applicable to libertarian-
defined transactions even if they were only used for a section of the
economy. Not that they are overriding, just weaknesses.

-Mike Harris

[Bryan Bishop]

On Monday 29 September 2008, Nathan Cravens wrote:
> Here's a simple political format:
>
> 1. Consensus
> 2. Disagree?
> 3. Start anew.
> 4. Most attractive wins

#3 is not political.

[Smári McCarthy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Taxation is essentially rent you pay for access to a community, with the
sideline understanding that people who get nothing can't give anything
back, and hence unemployment benefits etc.

Being forced to pay rent is unacceptable. But! I also live in a place
where I get "free" healthcare/education. That is to say, I get it
because I am a member of the community, which is based on the
understanding that I will at some point pay my "rent".

The opposite model is to pay no/less rent and buy into every service
individually, as per the US. This is not provably better; in fact, all
empirical evidence I've seen suggests that on the long run this is more
expensive to all parties (individuals, companies and society as a whole)
because those who can afford it pay more, those they work for also pay
more, those who can't pay suffer more and when medical ailments befall
them they are off work longer which costs both them and society more to
deal with.

Why isn't there a more logical way to do this? I'm very much willing to
pay rent/taxes in exchange for basic service. What bothers me about
taxes isn't the price tag, it's the use of the money accumulated. I'm
willing to help fund a healthcare system and a university, but I am NOT
willing to help fund a state church, a state legislature (as I think
individuals are perfectly capable of crowdsourcing this function), a
state executive wing (as I think execution of the state's affairs can be
handled implicitly rather than explicitly) or any other such nonsense.

One of Iceland's biggest banks, Glitnir, almost went bankrupt yesterday.
The state, with no authority of mine, stepped in and bought up 75% of
the bank using tax money that I amongst others had paid. (Well, strictly
speaking most of it was probably borrowed..) I see no benefit in this
for me or for other tax payers. Most people's lives would be vastly
simplified if the oligarchs were for once punished severely for their
misdoings.


Now. At this point I want to make an observation: This has nothing to do
with open manufacturing. Could somebody PLEASE talk about a chemical
process, a new gadget, or a practical way of building houses? Thank you.


- Smári

- --
Smári McCarthy
sm...@yaxic.org http://smari.yaxic.org
(+354) 662 2701 - "Technology is about people"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFI4eGx9cJSn8kDvvERAnwnAKCJiZ2muQLULHrtyJaycFVhDIqXhQCgw7S3
mqbklK27itRHU1D2ZVH0aNI=
=qSKk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Josef Davies-Coates]

I'm going to try and make that tenuously tie in with Open Manufacturing:

If we can work out a logical way to "do" tax/ rent then perhaps we can use a similar model to fund Open Manufacturing research and development?

Right, now I've said that I just want to add that here in the UK, despite having the NHS, in the same week the Gov't magicked into existence and spent £50 billion to bail out a private bank (Northern Rock) it also said that it couldn't find £6 billion to fund public health (a nice observation included in the Green New Deal report about how to tackle the "triple crunch", credit, climate, and oil depletion).

We've done it a few times again since then too.

Josef.

2008/9/30 Smári McCarthy <sp...@hi.is>