Comments on: Free Press Free Enterprise

By: P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » The Liberator and Post-Scarcity Economic Development

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:43:24 +0000

[...] marks a historic moment for free enterprise development (see last post for what we mean by free enterprise). To my knowledge, we are demonstrating the first case of free [...]

By: Edward Miller

Edward Miller — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:43:43 +0000

@Franz

I agree with you that we need to be very concerned on a local level about how to best organize our societies to promote healthy and vibrant communities.

It would be such a shame if we waste our creativity being overly concerned with sales and not concerned enough with building livable, walkable, and beautiful communities… not that the two are mutually exclusive.

Happy workers are essential for producing quality products as many businesses have learned… from Ford to Google.

By: Franz Nahrada

Franz Nahrada — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:23:13 +0000

I think as Leo does that the difference is overemphasized and we can very well go with Open Source as long as we really practise the four freedoms and what comes with it.

By: Marcin

Marcin — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:30:19 +0000

@Karl: I must add that my response to ‘free’ and ‘open source’ became personalized after FSCONS. I heard the terms before, and for practical purposes, the terms were the same to me. But from the people I spoke to – we connected to the ideology of ‘free.’ The discussions pointed out that ‘open source’ is sometimes used to mean ‘open source under glass,’ where you can see it only, but the other 3 freedoms may be missing. My feelings were touched about the explicit pointing to the economically-distributive nature of ‘free’, which I personally find awe-inspiring because of the disruptive economic potential. I know at least that the ‘free’ constituency is passionate about distributive economics. I don’t know whether people talking ‘open source’ are also talking about ‘distributive economics,’ so now I make it a point to ask them to clarify. This is because those who include the distributive economics component in their thinking are typically able to understand the Resilient Community Construction Set at a deeper level. To me, ‘free’ is an irresistable, transformative force – and a deep drive that will never leave the human spirit. Open source does not, in my mind, carry the same depth of meaning or power.

By: Leo Dearden

Leo Dearden — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:27:12 +0000

“We start with the difference between free and open source. Open source means one freedom: the freedom to examine the source or workings of something. Free, as defined by the Free Software Foundation, means the four freedoms above. Therefore, for example, for an open source product â€“ you might be able to view the design â€“ but that may not mean that you can produce, change, or distribute the design without restrictions.”

This is the most common misunderstanding of open source. Open Source in practicial terms means exactly the same four freedoms as Free (Libre). If there is a difference, it is one of moral vs. practical emphasis in justification for the freedoms.

The final arbiter or Open Source is the OSI, and their standard is at:

http://opensource.org/docs/osd

There have been some attempts to brand “Source under glass” as Open Source, but they were rejected by the community and the OSI.

By: Franz Nahrada

Franz Nahrada — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:02:04 +0000

@ Edward, I totally agree with your point, but there is something to add: the work that “breaks away” on one side as idle and obsolete, repetitive and painful menial labor is needed on the other side as the work of refinement, coordination, design and application. There is not a “death of work”, only the fact that capitalism is unable to reorganize and restructure work according to the needs of automation. So people are unemployed, although the new potentials and necessities of the automated world call for so many new and exciting human activities. In a global villages world, we will feed most of these activities directly, by local supporting environments rather than by the sales generated from our products. I am very affraid that Marcin does not see the overall degressive effect of the value side here.

By: Karl

Karl — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:30:35 +0000

Marcin, thanks for posting this. I became a bit concerned when in your ‘Report from FSCONS 2009′ entry you stated that you didn’t know there was a difference between libre and open source software. I had always just assumed that you understood this. It just goes to show that people need to constantly question the actual meaning of and the intent behind the words used by others.

As for putting people out of work, yes, that is the purpose of automation. Why would any sane person advocate for monotonous, back-breaking work to be done by human beings? Automate the hell out of everything!

By: CEB Sales: Rocket Fuel for Post-Scarcity Deverlopment? | Open Source Ecology

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:27:14 +0000

[...] marks a historic moment for “free enterprise” development (see last post for what we mean by free enterprise). To my knowledge, we are demonstrating the first case of [...]

By: Chad

Chad — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:08:01 +0000

Very well put, Edward.

By: Marcin

Marcin — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:09:13 +0000

John, the short answer to your question is that the automatic version of the controls is a plug-in module. One has a choice to use the manual version or the automatic version. Both versions will be developed to their full potential. The advantage of the manual version is lower overall system complexity and cost. The advantage of the automatic version is 2- to 3-fold increase in production rate. Given the open documentation of the automated version, we claim that it is still within the realm of appropriate technology. Moreover, the automated version allows the elimination of one worker in the house-building process. This could be a great boon in the case where, for example – there is a couple building their home – and they can’t get any wage-laboring friends to help.

By: Edward Miller

Edward Miller — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:41:47 +0000

You seem to be committing the “Broken Window Fallacy.” If Johnny hits a ball into a window and breaks it, a glass maker must be hired to replace the window. This is an increase in employment but the fact that Johnny broke a window doesn’t make society richer. The money used to pay for a new window could otherwise have been put to more productive uses had the window not been broken.

We should not spend one iota of effort attempting to prop up vampire industries and obsolete professions. We should do the opposite and instead work to transcend the need for wage labor entirely.

Automation is not the enemy of workers. It is only the enemy of workers when it is produced under the conditions of artificial scarcity. This makes it impossible for workers to obtain the means of production.

Open source circuitry such as the Arduino provide all the schematics and allow for these schematics to be improved by anyone around the world. Eventually, projects like RepRap will allow all sorts of objects, including circuits, to be printed out right in your living room.

Thus, these sorts of projects do “remove workers from the workflow,” but they do not cause any decrease in the quality of life because what ends up happening is that these projects just completely eliminate the need for an industry.

Is it bad that it is no longer a necessity to hire paid professionals to write internet browser software or pen encyclopedia articles? Or does it in fact enrich everyone else that we no longer have to spend money on things that can be produced more efficiently without wage labor?

By: Jeb

Jeb — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:48:34 +0000

One interesting thing about franchise businesses is that I don’t know (yet) of any co-op versions. Franchise limitations on local owners via their agreements is distasteful to real entrepreneurs and also those who prefer localization, but ensures consistency for the customer which allows the development of effective brands. The preparation, marketing, and sales of a franchise opportunity are an entire business operation in themselves, along with ongoing marketing and training support to franchisees. I’m not sure why the same thing can’t be setup in a kind of co-op model where the franchisees collectively own the main branding organization, but I wonder if conflict would be more likely ensue without top-down organization (too many chiefs). The thing I’ve learned myself about business the hard way is that all the pieces are important and often non-trivial. Without effective marketing, there is no business for example.

By: John M Ennis

John M Ennis — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:59:32 +0000

I would hope that you will continue the development of the manual, human controlled model.

While I am a sucker for gadgets and gizmos, I seriously question your desire to stick a microcontroller on everything.

If you question the use of automation at a fundamental level, what nearly always shows up is a desire to remove people from the workflow. I would question that this is in the best interests of our society.

What usually happens in a setting where automation is introduced is the most vulnerable have their jobs taken from them.

Just a thought. I really like your work