Slashdot Mirror
Reclaiming the Commons
NeuroManson writes "What do fresh air, medicine, culture, copyright, and government have in common? Perhaps not exactly what you think. Up until recently, I considered the term "commons" as an archaic term from Victorian or Elizabethan times. However, apparently it still exists both as a concept and a philosophy. Despite its almost ancient connotations, it's an eye opener regarding how concepts centuries old hold true even today, but much like freedom, require eternal vigilance to protect, and covers everything from the air you breath through the GNU, HDTV, and copyright issues. Read on." Bollier's article and the responses are superb intellectual reading. If you don't have time today, bookmark it, come back later.
I just looked at this 'rebuttal'. Essentially, Palmer's quibble is that The American People are equated with various non-profit, mutual groups such as community garden managers and Alcoholics Anonymous, and that commons if anything is really a spectrum from individual benevolent ownership (e.g. Linux trademark) to global sharing (copyright of Alice in Wonderland).
So what? The point of the original article is that previously shared and non-profit assets are being privatized and protected. Any rebuttal must show how encroachment isn't happening to be considered conclusive, or even relevant.
Actually, it's more like "Let's go mug some honest, middle class people" as the rich ones generally have enough defenses to avoid the mugging.
Oh if Slashdot were the only "problem". (Actually Slashdot has brought the great technical advantage of moderation -- something needed when the Internet gates were opened to the plebes in the mid-90's. But that's not to say UseNet couldn't have added a moderation protocol.) Now, everyone has a personal blog (even me, now, sad to say). Even those that allow others' comments, such as mine, don't attract them because of lower viewership/memberhip and because there is less assurance to potential posters that the site will be up the next day.
So essentially, we have a bunch of private little independent monologues going on, plus some dialog on a few big private sites like Slashdot and kuro5hin, but no public dialog in an Internet Commons like UseNet.
(Why do I blog? Because no one is on UseNet, because I don't want a private company copyrighting what I write, and because big sites reasonably don't want to post every last thing I want to post.)
Unfortunately, it is about as narrow minded a rebuttal as I have seen. Rather than address the original article on its merits, he chooses to attack and condescend. Palmer chooses to take a very narrow definition of "Commons", probably because that is the only way he can defend his ideas. Once I saw that he worked for the Cato Institude, things made sense.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
This is what I consider the commons.
Knowledge is no longer a common due to intellectual propery. Water is sold, Medicine is an extention of Intellectual propery, so its sold, Food is sold, we have surplus's of food sitting in government warehouses like milk and rice, which is enough to feed the whole population of the USA and the whole population of alot of other places, but instead it goes to waste literally because our laws make it so it must be sold.
Knowledge should be free.
Food should be free, not good food, but some food.
Water should be free, no one should be able to own a stream, you should be able to go get water for free.
Air should always be free, if we go to mars you should not pay for air.
The guy at slashdot I argued with said even air should have a price.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
An idiot writes:
Well, obviously, part of the commons is Linux, and this is a Linux-related news feed. So to the extent that the commons is communism, then always.
Apparently some have a difficult time understanding the difference between libertarianism and communism (hard to believe). To explain using Linux as an example:
A libertarian is one respectful of each individual's liberty and property. He/she engages in projects with each other through the premise of contract. Volunteer to work on an open source project? That's an excellent example of such a contract, exercised by the choice of the individual. Just because the compensation doesn't come in currency doesn't mean there isn't compensation - the compensation is the reward recognized by the individual, whether it be intellectual gain, recognition, pleasure, etc.
A utopianist (communist, socialist, collectivist, democrat, national socialist, and other nice words for what is fundamentally just a human parasite living off of others hard work, talent and energy) is one who declares a ficticious claim to the liberty, property and choice of others. Look at recent patent parasites (such as the JPEG patent matter) - attorneys declaring the work of others to belong to them, and demanding financial tribute before others may continue their own work. Another example is Microsoft demanding computer manufacturers give up some of their property (in the form of currency) for every machine they sell and give it to Microsoft, regardless of whether it has Linux or Windows loaded. Or perhaps it's the RIAA seizing the work of free artists who wish to contribute their music to Shoutcasters and listeners, demanding they be paid a license for work they did not produce in order to "help the people." Yet another example is a coercive employer who demands rights to your Linux work after hours. Create a package for Linux? The employer may demand ownership of it, wrongfully so. All of these are examples of the parasite at work.
The quickest way to recognize a parasite is to listen for key words they use to trick others into giving up their goods (parasites are lazy, remember, and don't like to hold a gun against your head in order to get your stuff. They'd rather you feel guilty and give it up voluntarily).
Listen for words like the people, the collective, society, and other representations of individuals in plural. When you realize that no human being on earth is able to peer into the heads of thousands of others, cognitively knowing all of their intent, will and desire, you'll understand that such plural words subsequently do not make sense absent such psychic ability.
We can only speak for ourselves knowingly, and therefore have rights only to ourselves and our property.
Linux and other open source projects are perhaps some of the most compelling efforts today of the power and correctness of libertarianism.
This is a fact Everytime i mention we should have a fair society, where everyone has food, education, etc
Who is to decide what is fair? And who will take from one and give to another to enforce this decision?
Stalin, Hitler, FDR, Castro and countless others declared themselves fit to be such a judge. Some may argue that their implementation wasn't too terribly nice, but as redistributionists, they were quite effective and followed your objective with passion.
Also, what will you do when everyone decides to lay down and wait to be fed, since "everone has a right to food, education"? I'd like to spend the next 30 years at college - Harvard would be nice. Then I'll probably feel like retiring. Why can't we all do that?
Try thinking about the consequences of what you wish for, since it's always people like you that open the door for tyrants and murders to enter.
As in many conservative think-tank rebuttals, Palmer ignores (willfully, IMO) the essential arguments of the case, and builds a straw man which he proceeds to tear down.
Anyone can argue convincingly against themselves. Refuting a carefully prepared case based on history, common sense, and true democratic ideas is much harder, as Palmer evidently realizes.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
Your skit seems to make sense at first glance, but you haven't carried it out to its logical conclusion:
PARENT of CHILD: You monster! What have you done? I'm going to kill you!
CAPITALIST: Uh-oh...
In the long run, murder is not profitable. The social consequences will eventually catch up with you.
What's missing from Bollier's essay is the explanation of _why_ there is the push to wrap all commons in enclosure. It is implied that greed and selfishness are the motivating factors, but I suggest these two are not motivators but are instead the actions taken on behalf of a lower-level motivator; specifically, the human need to be and to be recognized as successful.
This leads to the question, "What values are used to determine success?" A corporate CEO who can look another CEO in the face and say, "My business made more money than yours did last quarter" is considered a success in our society even if the _true_ costs of his success are not reflected in the money he gathered via his business. This type of "success" is only possible when the measurement of success is made _only_ in currency.
The true, core problem is this: We've developed a economic system that only recognizes wealth when it can be measured in currency. The big problem with this is that the worth, or the value, of many things cannot be acurately measured in currency. In other words, wealth and currency are not the same thing. Traditionally, currency has been a symbolic function of wealth but we've seen the reversal of this; now currency is considered the wealth and what cannot be "currency valued" is considered worthless until such time as it can be valued in terms of currency.
When the _costs_ of doing business are measured only in currency, you see a similar warping of the concept of wealth. Who pays the cost of dirty air when car and truck manufacturers make the dirtiest engines they can get away with? Well, there is no cost to making dirty engines which foul the air because there is no currency valuation for dirty vs. clean air; clean air has no value in the market place because it has no currency value. Apply this same scenario to water, food, communications mediums, etc. and you start to see the scale of the damage done simply because certain things of tremendous value are not quickly and easily measured in terms of how many dollars they can fetch in the marketplace.
Another obvious problem with measuring wealth only in currency is that the intangibles which are part of the original wealth are usually stripped away, leaving only the husk of the original thing which is being currency-valued. Concepts are quick to be disgarded -- freedom, creativity, etc. -- simply because they cannot be given a currency value. So not only is the original wealth stripped away by the process of currency-valuation, but much of the fundamental wealth of the original thing -- the associated concepts -- is tossed out like so much distracting, annoying trash. Furthermore, in the process of currency-valuation of the original wealth, the process of marketing applies the concept of "least common denominator" and finally, in effect, renders what once was a item of wealth into the least valuable thing it can possibly be while still having currency value.
The argument used by the politicians and bureaucrats who give away the "commons" areas to business for commercial exploitation is this: the commons has no value until such time as it is being converted into currency (that is, profits for business.) If you don't believe it, go do some quick research and reading and you'll be quickly enlightened as to the supposed rational "reasoning" of our government when it comes to the public trust and anything which may be construed to be a "commons."
So we see the commercialization of _everything_ because that is the only way we as a society have come to measure wealth; in terms of our currency. I can't wait until I'm charged for the priviledge of breathing dirty, diesel-fume-reeking air, eating pesticide-poisoned food, drinking polluted water from the tap, seeing and hearing nothing but crap from commercialized media -- just so some ignorant asshole CEO can say aloud in his country club, "My business made more money than yours did last quarter."
Oh, wait, we're almost there! Any enterprising CEOs out there want to start charging us money for the act of breathing? Well, lucky us -- they just haven't yet figured out how to do that yet.
May the heirs of humanity be so fortunate.
*grumble*
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
There is no doubt that the issue of the "commons" is an important one in our age. Furthermore, it is clear to most that the concept of Copyright has been abused.
But this article shows its political biases in a number of ways. Early on, the use of the term "corporate classes" is pretty telling.
The attack upon the drug companies used very misleading data. The article implies that a drug company does little other than take a government funded drug, fill out a little paperwork, and then sell it for way above production costs. There is no attempt at balance in this presentation. In fact, a drug company takes the results of basic research, and invests vasts amounts of money (typically a billion or more per drug) in clinical trials required by a government bureaucracy (FDA). This is risk money expended without knowing if the drug will be successful, and in fact many are not. The drug company then must advertise the drug (which includes providing real information), produce it, and market it. In addition to that, it is liable to unpredictable but huge losses if some unforeseen adverse event occurs in even a tiny number of uses. In other words, the idea of the drug may be in the commons, but the implementation uses vast amounts of private capital, at high risk.
The failure of the paper to clarify this point tells me that the author has a clearly anti-private property bias, and is willing to lie in order to put forward his points. This is unfortunate, because he there are valid viewpoints in some of what he says.
Another issue that is brushed aside is the "taking" of landowner's property by environmental rules. Through the use of quotes, this very serious issue is simply discarded as one requiring no thought and engendering no reasoned dispute. In fact, those of us living in the wilder parts of the US are well aware that our personal property (and to a large extent our financial future) may be arbitrarily taken from us in the name of protection of a species that we may not even be aware of. In other words, there is a clear case that these takings, if necessary to protect the species, should be paid for by the beneficiaries of the commons, but instead are arbitrarily taken from random individuals!
At least when capitalists use the government to take land (such as the railroad's eminent domain takings), they are required to compensate the landowners. But in the view of the author of this paper, apparently the environmental takings are justified with no compensation to the person injured by those takings.
Thus, overall, I would say that this is a well written piece of propaganda attacking private property rights not only in areas where those rights have been overextended by corrupt government (copyright extensions, DMCA) but in areas where they rights are fundamental, owned by individuals, and deeply rooted in history.
It is an attempt to extend the commons to the those things which have traditionally been the very fundaments of private property: your land. Admittedly, this is a small part of the article, but it is an example of the dangerous thinking behind such a polemic.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Quite simple, sherlock.
Those taxes are there to protect the "rights" of the property owner. Don't use randian jargon to sound intellectual... If you're going to get into this argument it requires that you go back to the whole social contract issue.
By calling taxes "looting" and redistribution of wealth "stealing" you ignore the fact that the government created the environment where the "good capitalist" could flourish and develop his/her large amount of wealth. Had the governments of the world maintained total laissez faire, I wouldn't be surprised if a marxist style revolution of the proliterait had occured. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you accept the government, accept taxes, and try to use the system to your benefit to the best of your ability and thank the powers that be for the system in place which protects your wealth and ability to earn wealth for only a moderate percentage of your PROFITS, or you live in a world where only draconian measures on your part (beating or murdering to protect your property, and stranger even, "intellectual property") are needed.
It cracks me up how randians are so janus-like. They love the copywrites, protection and largess of government, and deplore the taxes which provide just that! And those randians who talk about the poor getting off their butts ignorant... I doubt they've experienced the weight of bein born into crushing poverty.
Machine Gestalt
-- warning, rant ahead --
Um, I'm sorry but you just got yourself in a bit of it there. When you say the government should get its hand out of your wallet then proceed to say that the cost of government should be footed by other good capitalists just attempting to make a buck like yourself, but doing it across national "borders". Either stfu and accept a total lack of government support and protection and see how well you do without taxes (good luck pal, your attitude would get you face down in a gutter) or be thankful that there are police, an army and lots of politicians accept your kickbacks and protect your way of life. If you have to worry about 40% income taxes, you're already living better than 99% of the rest of the world, for christs sake what do you want, a golden bust of your ass in every room of your house? You realize there are people in THIS COUNTRY who starve every day, children even (so good luck using that lack of motivation bs across the board) while you eat your steaks and have your maid clean your house for you. Why? because you are LUCKY first and foremost, and MAYBE because you're smart or talented but that's not a requirement at all.
And as for the reason Rome fell, it was because of corruption, steady incursions of german and turkish/mongol raiding parties, and a string of bad leaders. Rome wasn't in decline under hadrian, but by the time of diocletian it was in disarray. As for your comment about the burden of the rich, you should know that a large part of rome's prosperity was based on conquest and when the empire stopped growing it quickly started into decadence... Saying that rome fell because they over taxed the rich is like saying george bush is president because he won texas.
You need to travel a bit and experience the world from a perspective which allows you to understand the situations of people all over the world and even in your own country, rather than staying in your biltmore or waldorf astoria. There have been uncountable numbers of people smarter, and with more drive than you, that because of socioeconomic conditions, weren't able to prosper. When you can drive through your thick skull the fact that by leveling the playing field somewhat, these people are able to prosper and BENEFIT the economy and provide OPPORTUNITY through their ideas and insight. I'll make the wild claim that an average afgani (someone you probably don't like because their views are different than you and they're not good capitalists like you) would be just as successful as you had your parents adopted him/her instead of having you...
I really hope you take a good hard look at your views about justice and what you think you're entitled to... Are you entitled to extravagent opulence at the cost of the lives of your fellow humans, at the cost of global suffering? Do you want to live in a world where the only moral right is get whatever you can without breaking the law? Are you selfish? Greedy?
That we live in a welfare-capitalist society is as much for your good as for the good of the poor. The levels of oppression to which pure laissez faire creates (read up on the work conditions of the industrial revolution) would put any country that practices it to the extreme in which you believe in it, in line for a revolution very similar to the one in 1917, in russia. Mild change from above to stave off radical change from below.
What it comes down to is that you'll probably never be able to see things from the perspective from which I talk, and it's really a shame... As much as I disagree with marx, seems his ideas of economic determinism at least hold true for you, sir.
Machine Gestalt