written to linkedin.com/in/wtebbens
2016-02-29: Implementing a Basic Outcome with the Crowd Control Organizational Form
>> I like especially the edge where bits and atoms converge deployed for social good.
This is so crucial, and exactly what I am working on! :-D
The GNU GPL uses Copyright to enforce CopyLeft over bits.
Can we can use Property Rights to enforce Property Left over atoms?
I have written a "Terms of Operation" that 'maps' the patterns of the GNU GPL into physical realm to retain User Freedom in the physical realm when sharing the material costs of production.
We can apply this agreement to shared property; using Crowd Funding to gather the initial land and tools (Property) and work contracts (Promises).
Investors are like Consumers prepaying for Product, but there is no central authority that pays investors. Instead, investors become real Property owners in the Sources of production and are the natural owners of the Product as a side-effect of their ownership in the Sources.
Just as the single owner of an fruit tree owns all the fruit of that tree even before they are produced, the many owners of a fruit orchard each own their % of the fruit (according to the % of the orchard they each own), even before the fruit is produced. There is no sale because the Product is already the Property of the person who will use it. In this way we 'pre-allocate' Product and eliminate the need for selling or buying except for Surplus. This eliminates the possibility of Profit and even sales-tax because the transaction simply does not occur.
Investments are in the form of either:
1. Property: This is real physical assets such as land, tools, organisms, etc. In some cases, plain-old-money ($) can be used indirectly to purchase property, but some groups may require this conversion take place by proxy for religious purposes or for other reasons.
2. Promises: These are conracts to work in the future.
3. Profit: When consumers overpay for surplus product, some % of the price-above-cost that they paid is invested *for* them into more Property for future production of that same product.
==Terms of Operation
You may invest as much as you like, but all surplus must be traded under the conditions of this contract.
0. Property is result of investment. Investors become real owners and receive product as a natural side-effect of that ownership.
1. Product is the investor's return. Investors become real owners and receive product as a natural side-effect of that ownership.
2. Profit is the payer's investment. When surplus is sold, some % of that price-above-cost must be invested into more Sources that become the real Property ownership of the person who paid for that growth.
3. Promises are worker's investment. Workers become contingent Property owners when they commit to achieve future goals. This Property vests incrementally, and may be rescinded if those goals are not met.
4. Secession is owner's divestment. Any individual or subgroup can fork from the rest while retaining property ownership. This helps keep control localized during growth.
2016-02-17: PayWall
The GNU GPL attempts to "lock open" the Virtual Means of Production to increase User Freedom.
This reduces barriers-to-entry in the virtual realm, allowing any worker to access to the 'Sources' needed to adjust 'bits'
We must reduce barriers-to-entry in the physical realm, allowing any worker to access to the 'Sources' needed to adjust 'atoms'.
2016-02-17: The GNU GPL is a Trade Agreement using Copyright to "lock open" the Virtual Means of Production.
The GNU GPL uses Copyright to lock-open the immaterial Means of Production.
2016-02-17: Noticing the Sustainable Economies Law Center -- TheSELC.org
2016-02-17: User Freedom in the Material World
The GNU GPL requires Object Users gain access to Sources at no extra charge.
Sources can be thought of as the Immaterial Means of Production.
This reduces barriers-to-entry for potential workers and so reduces Profit.
Artificial scarcity is difficult to enforce when workers have Free access.
2016-02-16: Thinking more about the bulletin-board system paired with product futures we can use to replace most token-passing.
We must track the each Product desired, the Sources and Skills needed for that production.
PRODUCT | SOURCES | SKILLS |
--------------------------------------------------
bread | flour, bakery | baking |
--------------------------------------------------
flour | wheat, mill | milling |
--------------------------------------------------
wheat | wheat, farm | farming |
CAN DO : The skills you are capable of applying. This is your work potential.
WILL DO: The skills you commit to apply in the future. This is your work schedule.
DONE : The skills you applied in the past. This is your work history.
2016-02-11: Mapping the Patterns of the GNU GPL Onto the Material World
The GNU GPL uses Copyright to enforce Copyleft which requires Users gain access to the 'Sources' of the 'Objects' they use.
Objects are finished goods, such as a computer program, but might also be something as ordinary as a loaf of bread.
Sources are the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to [future instances] of it". This includes (but is not limited to) human-readable "source code" and supporting scripts for making a program, but might also mean the recipe and designs of supporting tools required to make bread.
We can think of Sources as the Immaterial Means of Production for any Object. They are required to make those Objects, and to modify future instances of those Objects, but they are not enough to fully guarantee User Freedom. We also need the Material Means of Production to write and store and express programs or to make and store bread.
So, while the GNU GPL can be applied to the Immaterial parts of most anything, we need another legal instrument to insure Users can access the Material Means of Production.
This may seems like an impossible goal since Material Sources have real costs that cannot be ignored.
...
I thought about this problem for a very long time. In the meantime I kept hearing about large corporations controlling more and more of the production we need, and collecting more and more Profit along the way.
It seemed obvious we could use part of that Profit collected from the Users to buy and build the Material Means of Production that those Users need to insure their freedom, but how could we ever get these corporations to do such a thing?
Then I remembered the GNU GPL is a voluntary agreement that is applied by those who *choose* to constrain their *own* holdings.
So we, as groups who want to insure User Freedom in the Material realm, can buy real Property such as land and tools and plants and animals, etc. and then *choose* to apply a legally-binding agreement over that physical property, that treats part of Profit as an investment from the User who paid - causing ownership in the growth of that organization to be automatically and continuously distributed to those who pay for that growth.
Since these new Owners will also be Users of the very Objects of that production, they can accept those Objects as the "Return on Investment". This creates a very strange dynamic where Profit is driven toward zero.
When Users own the Material Means of Production and accept the Object itself (such as a loaf of bread) as ROI, there is no need to sell the Object at all since it is already the property of those who will use it, so the Price each user pays as a consumer is exactly the Costs they each paid as a co-owner, and Profit does not exist at all because the final transaction (selling the Object) does not occur.
So by treating (at least part of) Profit as the payer's investment, Users incrementally gain property ownership in the Material Means of Production, eventually giving them the control they have always sought, and achieving those results at no more than the real Costs of Production.
If these Users have surplus Objects, they can sell them to Users who do not yet have enough Property, and even charge Profit against them, but must (according to the agreement we still need to write) treat some of that Profit as the payer's investment so that all Users gain freedom in the Material Realm by gaining access to the Material Means of Production.
2016-02-06: Mapping the patterns of the GNU GPL into the physical realm [posted to https://forum.fractalfuture.net/t/mapping-the-patterns-of-the-gnu-gpl-into-the-physical-realm/944 ]
[quote="Radivis, post:2, topic:944, full:true"]
The way you phrased it, it sounds like there is a necessity to expand the means of production via the profits of the users. However, that might not be desirable, if the means of production are already extensive enough.
[/quote]
Yes, in fact it is almost guaranteed to be true, since the current owners would have no surplus to sell unless they were producing more than they need. On the other hand, it is reasonable to own slightly more Sources than you predict you will need of the Product to protect yourself case there is a problem with production (say a drought or fire).
The current owners can choose to sell-off some of their current holdings if they like - and this will be an important option for those who change their mind about how much they want of that exact product, etc., but I don't think there is any reason to limit the amount a person can own since treating profit as payer investment will eventually solve the distribution problem anyway (I may be wrong here, especially in extreme cases of monopolization).
[quote="Radivis, post:2, topic:944, full:true"]
Instead, profits might buy additional shares of the means of production. Yet, these new shares would diminish the relative value of the already existing shares of the previous shareholders. Those would therefore have no incentive to make any profits under the GPTO - unless they have a natural psychological disposition to share their means of production with others.
[/quote]
Again, the current owners are not required to sell any of their own property - they can choose to buy new land and tools, etc. to fulfill the requirement of the GPTO.
But the desire to extract profits is a traditionally very powerful motivation, and since I do not fully understand all of those motivations, the GPTO only requires part of profits be treated as payer investment, leaving the rest to drive part of the business in the usual manner.
[quote="Radivis, post:2, topic:944, full:true"]
Is that a problem of the GPTO? What if it only shows that making profits is "unnatural" in some way?
[/quote]
Profit does not exist in the special case where the users are the owners and accept the product itself as ROI. This seems to prove profit measures the payer's lack of ownership in the means of production.
So I think profit is a 'natural' result of property misallocation. Treating profit as the payer's investment is a "negative feedback loop" that continuously distributes property to those who pay for that growth, and so drives profit toward zero.
But profit seems 'unnatural' in regular capitalism because it is (I think mostly with innocent intentions) being treated as a reward for the current owners which is a "positive feedback loop", concentrating more property into the hands of those who already own too much (the only reason they are selling the product is because they have no use for it themselves), and so dives profit toward infinity.
[quote="Radivis, post:2, topic:944, full:true"]
(The users) could use the savings to invest into whatever they want - rather than investing into the means of production that enabled the creation of the product they purchased by default.
[/quote]
Yes, this is an important point. Say you buy a strawberry milkshake from a company using the GPTO, only to findout you are allergic to strawberries. You wouldn't want part ownership in a strawberry field. Being able to exchange these titles with others is perfectly acceptable.
[quote="Radivis, post:2, topic:944, full:true"]
However, they also could use the savings for more consumption - or would they violate the GPTO by doing that?
[/quote]
I have thought about this part extensively, and am pretty sure we need a sort of 'delay' on the amount of time before the user can cashout lest they never gain ownership in Sources, but would love to hear objections or alternatives since in some ways it seems draconian.
[quote="Radivis, post:2, topic:944, full:true"]
Would the GPTO imply a "zero profit economy"? How would that be different from the non-profit sector we already have right now? Isn't the non-profit sector the equivalent to the copyleft commons in some way?
[/quote]
Non-profits are not owned by the consumers, and even when it is claimed that they are (such as a consumer cooperative), the consumers do not have *real* ownership, and certainly do not accept the product itself as ROI, and so the *real* owners overpay themselves massive wages while pretending profits do not exist.
Owners of a PropertyLeft commons would just fire these CEO types.
[quote="Radivis, post:2, topic:944, full:true"]
Why would only **some** of the profit have to be treated as the payer's investment and not all of it?
[/quote]
Treating 100% as payer investment was my initial assumption, and how I have usually phrased it when writing about this, and would probably be the fastest way to spreading this approach, but any amount above 0% would incrementally move us in that direction, and smaller amounts would be easier to 'sell' as a business idea since many corporations already spend some amount of profits on random 'charitable' things anyway (usually as a PR stunt).
2016-02-04: Mapping the patterns of the GNU GPL into the physical realm [posted to https://forum.fractalfuture.net/t/mapping-the-patterns-of-the-gnu-gpl-into-the-physical-realm/944 ]
The GNU GPL uses Copyright to enforce Copyleft which requires Users gain access to the immaterial Sources of the Objects they use.
Objects are finished goods, such as a computer program.
Sources are the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to (future instances) of it", such as human-readable "source code".
We might think of the Sources as the Immaterial Means of Production.
The GNU GPL is voluntary, meaning the 'owners' of the Sources *choose* to apply this constraint.
Hmm... How would this structure apply to the production of a physical Object such as bread?
Let's say we are going to write a sort of "Terms of Operation" that owners of Material Means of Production can voluntarily choose to apply to real property. For now we can refer to this agreement as the "General Public Terms of Operation" (GPTO).
Now let's do some text-replacement and see what the results should look like:
The GPTO uses Property Rights to enforce "Property Left" which requires Users gain access to the Material Sources of the Products they use.
Products are finished goods, such as a loaf of bread.
Material Sources are the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to (future instances) of it", such as a farm to grow wheat, a mill to grind flour, and a bakery to bake loaves.
So a business operating like this would need to somehow make sure the person buying bread gains access to the farm, mill and bakery, even though that user may not know how or even want to deal with those Material Sources.
This may seems like an impossible goal since Material Sources have real costs that cannot be ignored.
I thought about this problem for a very long time.
In the meantime I kept hearing about large corporations controlling more and more of the production we need, and collecting more and more Profit along the way.
I wondered about the special value called Profit. I wondered where it really comes from and what we really ought to be doing with it.
Then it suddenly occured to me that we can use part of the Profit the User pays at the point-of-sale to buy and build more farms and mills and bakeries that then eventually become the real property of those Users.
Almost simultaneously I also realized that when Users own the Material Means of Production, they can accept the Product itself (such as bread) as the return on investment, meaning there is no need to sell the Product at all since it is already the property of those who will consume it.
So by treating (at least part of) Profit as the payer's investment, Users incrementally gain property ownership in the Material Means of Production.
And if these Users treat the Product itself as their return on investment, they do not sell the bread to themselves, and so eventually no longer pay Profit to anyone.
If these Users have surplus Product, they can sell it to Users who do not yet have enough ownership, and even charge Profit against them, but must (according to the GPTO) treat some of that Profit as the payer's investment so that all Users eventually gain enough ownership in the Material Sources of Production needed to insure they have control over what they need, and can receive those Products at no more than the real costs of production.
2016-02-03: The Metaphysics of User Freedom
There is no fundamental difference between bread and software.
Both have both material and immaterial parts.
2016-02-03: The GNU GPL enforces artificial abundance