From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jan 04 2002 - 02:05:43 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > > Our disagreement, if there is one, is that I believe that this
> > > limitation will become a /more/ significant factor limiting
> > > wealth as we advance, and you seem to contend that it will
> > > become less of a factor, and that more of our wealth will be
> > > informational and such. Your scenario is quite possible, and
> > > I won't discount it out of hand, but I can't share it. No matter
> > > how much wealth we create over and above natural resources,
> > > someone with more natural resources can still create more than
> > > someone with less.
> > Except for raw matter and energy, what but information and
> > technology to use the information would be of benefit after
> > deployment of full MNT? How would having other "natural
> > resources" be of great advantage. I honestly don't see how.
> I'm talking about mass-energy. Are you not listening? Am I
> not speaking plain English? There is, essentially, no natural
> resource other than mass-energy. But one is enough.
Why, exactly are you getting in battling mode when I ask you for
clarification? It is unnecessary. If you are talking about
mass-energy then I see that almost everything else could
potentially be part of a commons. Would you agree with that and
see it as a good thing at least in part? Where would you draw
your lines of what works best as a commons and what doesn't?
> > > Yep, I'm one of those. Owned things get put to effective use;
> > > things in the commons are inevitably destroyed and neglected.
> > Doesn't it bother you that it is literally impossible to impose
> > ownership on every erg of energy? Do you not understand the
> > values of commons to innovation?
> Two different questions: for one, I reject your childish
> we-can't-be-perfect-so-let's-not-try-at-all argument. Ownership
Why are you calling my questions "childish" now? I didn't say a
darn thing about "perfection". I do point out that the idea of
imposing ownership on every quanta seems pretty impossible and
therefore silly on the face of it.
> of things works well, today, as it has for centuries, and as
> it likely will in the future. As for the second question, I
> recognize the value of the public domain of ideas for innovation,
> which is why I oppose intellectual property. But no, I do not
> in any way recognize that the concept of shared ownership of
> capital goods is beneficial in any way to humanity.
As things become less scarce (mass-energy is not much of a
scarcity for some time) it seems to me that ownership as such
will become less of an issue for as many things as it is today.
That is what I would like to explore anyway.
I am glad to see we have a good level of agreement re
intellectual property. When you first said you believe in
ownership for most everything I took it rather literally. I am
glad to see that is not how it was meant.
I don't think there will be very many "capital goods" a bit
after MNT myself and I don't see offhand why some shared
ownership of one's that do exist (within reason) is necessarily
ruled out of consideration.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:32 MST