I have posted this idea, but it was at the end of a long rambling response
to Waldemar, and got lost in the deluge. I wont post it again, because it's
long; you'll have to wade through the first bit until you come to the detail
of my idea. I hope you find it interesting, I'd love to get some comments.
Please also note that I am not necessarily advocating this system. It's more
that I want to demonstrate that we can think of new ways of organising,
given the stunning communications technology we now have and are improving
on. I believe that we should see many of the building blocks of our current
social systems (like owning things) as more appropriate to a time almost
past, and subject them to higher criticism than we commonly do.
Here's the link to the post in the archives:
----- Original Message -----
From: Dana Hedberg <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 3:06 AM
Subject: Owning Everything, WAS: [Re: Getting rich without copyright (was
> "Emlyn (onetel)" wrote:
> [Copyright-less comments about music and making a living deleted.]
> > Or not. Actually, I agree quite strongly with you on this Lee;
> > should be free. But I think this is only half the picture, because I
> > everything should be free.
> > Seriously. To be more precise, I think that ownership is a seriously
> > concept that damages freedom, and has created the massively unjust world
> > which we now live, with a small minority of people making up the very
> > (that's us westerners), and the large majority of people belonging to
> > legions of the mindnumbingly, incomprehensibly poor. This, because
> > own things, which means that others in turn are excluded from their use.
> I can see evolutionary reasons for the rise of the concept of ownership.
> Not to mention that it becomes very difficult for you to use something
> when I'm in the process of using it...yes, some ugly little scuffles
> would most likely be the quickly realized default.
> > I detailed in a recent post one idea for a future market economy which
> > not include a concept of ownership (or more correctly, included the
> > that everyone owns everything). In that scenario, I would have
> > problem with taking away copyright; it becomes meaningless.
> This is very interesting. When you say everything, do you also include
> semi- and sentient objects/collections of matter/energy? Why or why not?
> Do you think it's possible to convert from a capitalist/property
> ownership system to your idea of an all-owner economy? Or, is that
> something that probably would have to have been started from the
> beginning of civilization?
> If you wouldn't mind Emlyn, could you please repost your idea, or you
> can send it to me directly if you feel it would be unnecessary clutter
> for the list in general. Thanks.
> > Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:27 MDT