2018-03-26: Looking for a job near Santa Cruz.
2018-03-23:
Just as when you own a tree, you own the fruit,
when you co-own a forest, you co-own the fruit.
There is no sale when the owners are the eaters.
Paying others for work is a cost of production.
Profit does not exist when there is no sale;
the price each pays as a consumer is the costs
that same person paid as an owner and the product
itself become the natural return on investment.
Once we relearn how to own For Product, we will
regain control the production of all the goods
and services we need.
2018-03-21:
I've been thinking about how to buy, own, control and govern the land and tools to produce the goods and services we need; and how to insure control of that Property remains in the hands of those who need the results.
I noticed the GNU GPL tries to do a very similar thing in the 'immaterial' realm.
The GNU GPL requires Users gain access to the Sources of production even though most Users do not even know what Sources are, and will never try to modify that source-code directly.
So why does this Copyright license require Users gain access to 'machinery' they do not know how to operate?
One unexpected result is that the Means of Production for the 'immaterial' realm are now available to *any* potential worker, no matter how poor (except for access to a terminal, which is actually a 'material', not 'immaterial' problem).
This lowers the barrier-to-entry to essentially 0, allowing all workers immediate and full access to the "intellectual property" required to work.
Mapping this onto the 'material' realm means the Consumers should bear the burden of Property ownership and accept the Product itself as the natural ROI.
----
Other constraints I've been considering:
. Workers gain Property on a work-to-own basis - meaning they receive immediate access to food and shelter that becomes their real property as they fulfill work promises.
. When selling surplus, we should charge Profit against latecomers, but then treat part of that value as an *investment* from that payer. This causes people with insufficient Property to slowly become owners in the growth of the cooperative, until they eventually also have enough ownership to receive all they need as the ROI of that Property.
. Subgroups within the coop should be allowed to secede/split/fork when realistic while retaining Property ownership of their portion.
2018-03-18: ❦ ❧ ☙ ❥ ❣ ♡ ♥ ❤ ➳ ღ 💌 🏩 💓 💔 💕 💖 💗 💘 💙 💚 💛 💜 💝 💞 💟 💑
2018-03-15: Let's start a Crowd Control campaign to secure the land and tools required to create and sustain the Basic Outcome we all need.
For example: 33 Acres near San Jose for $3.8 Million = $115,000/Acre = $2.64/sq_ft
LandWatch.com/Santa-Clara-County-California-Homesite-for-sale/pid/25060222
Google.com/maps/place/3412+Fowler+Rd,+San+Jose,+CA+95135
2018-03-15: Quit my job, sold my house, moved to Cali.
2018-03-09: FoodSovereignty.org/global-consultation-rights-farmers-plant-genetic-resources-food-agriculture
2018-03-06:
When you own For Product, there is no sale.
If you own a tree, you own the fruit.
You do not buy - it is yours already.
If a group of people own an orchard,
and accept the fruit itself as ROI,
they do not buy - each owns already.
This shows we can use property rights over the INPUTS of production (land and tools) to preallocate the OUTPUTS of production (goods and services) to those who will use them directly.
But we need some economy-of-scale to make a realistic alternative to business as usual.
We can specialize without tokens if we promise to work for others in the future, we can specialize without money and without the "Simultaneous Coincidence of Wants" problem the inhibits usual, just-in-time barter.
2018-03-05: Let's crowdfund some land and tools to build a privately owned, self-sustained permaculture city where we will have full control of all the goods and services we need.
2018-03-04: Imagine you were granted 100 acres of farmland and all the startup supplies needed to create a self-sustained ecovillage under the condition that you share the property with 99 other people in manner true to P2P principles.
What is your interpretation of P2P principles when applied to physical property?
What must and must not occur to insure that property remains P2P?
2018-03-04:
I was working on a game with maps which represent actual real estate listings*
and noticed problems when players are allowed to buy any arrangement of cells.
For example, one could create thin borders across the map with toll gates of any price.
I want the game to allow such problems, but then offer groups strategies to control it.
Do you have any suggestions to help groups solve such issues?
Are there ways besides regular old representative governance?
---
(*) When players 'buy' cells in the game, those funds go into escrow until either all of the cells of a map are filled and the purchase goes through, or canceled if that land is no longer on the market.
Each player becomes a real property owner, in some cases on a very small scale.
$1/square_foot == $43,560/acre
2018-03-03: LINUXSCADA.info
2018-03-03:
Let us landscape with the flora, fungi and fauna we all need.
After the seeds, spores and eggs, work is the only real cost.
By accepting the bounty as payment, we don't move money.
After startup costs, land owners get free landscaping forever.
2018-03-02: "'These loans are considerable and include a US$425 million Extended Loan Facility from the IMF itself alongside US$100 million from the Asian Development Bank, US$120 million from the World Bank and US$280 million from Japan.'" -- DevelopmentPathways.co.uk/resources/mongolia-kyrgyzsg-child-benefits
2018-03-02: DailyWire.com/news/27441/socialism-diet-heres-how-much-weight-average-amanda-prestigiacomo
2018-03-02: Soon we will create a coin backed by the physical Sources of production.
Robots are our friends when owned For Product.
But become our enemies when owned For Profit.