Re: [ox-en] Mapping the GNU GPL into the Physical Realm

This is very interesting. However I see a difference between physical 
and virtual objects:

When a virtual Object is created from virtual Sources, the amount of 
virtual Sources remains the same.
The possibility to create another Object is exactly the same.

However, when we create a physical Object from Physical Sources, the 
amount of physical Sources decreases
for they are locked up in a physical Object. At some point we would 
need more work in order to create an
Object - to find additional Sources. Basically, as new Objects are 
created, access becomes more difficult
for new Users.

The only remedy I see against this is when creation of a physical 
Object does not give ownership rights,
but instead gives *usership* rights. This means, once the Object in no 
longer used (for example the beer
bottle after the beer has been consumed), the user has the duty to 
return it to the Source pool. Basically,
all created physical Objects have to be returned to the Sources once 
they are no longer used.


Lehor

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 17:54:37 -0600, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've been trying to understand how the GNU GPL might apply to the
> material world and am happily surprised with the results.
>
>
> In the virtual world of software:
> 1.) An Object is the result of {compiling} some type of Sources.
> 2.) Sources are the inputs such as {source-code, makefiles,
> shell-scripts, installer scripts, etc.} required to change a future
> instance of that Object type.
>
>
> In the physical world of hardware:
> 1.) An Object is the result of {work* across time} to some type of 
> Sources.
> 2.) Sources are the inputs such as {land and water and seeds and
> animals and tools} required to change a future instance of that 
> Object
> type.
> *  Note: some Objects are occasionally created by the 'work' of 
> nature
> with no human intervention.
>
>
>
> So we can say physical Objects have physical Sources.
>
> For example, the Sources of a bottle of beer include land, water,
> barley, hops, yeast, heated water, containers, glass (for the 
> bottle),
> kiln (to melt the glass), etc. - and even recursively all the sources
> required to initially create the tools that created the tools, etc...
>
>
> The GNU GPL instructs us to help every user incrementally gain 
> at-cost
> access the Sources of all the Objects they use.
>
> I think I've found a way to do this!
>
> The trick is to start a business that can treat some % of Profit
> (Price above Cost) as an INVESTMENT FROM THE PAYER.
>
> Treating Profit as Payer Investment causes each user to slowly gain
> co-ownership in the *growth* of that organization.
>
> Imagine you buy a $5 hamburger from such a place, but it only cost 
> the
> current owners $3 to deliver that surplus (the owners would only be
> selling surplus, since the *primary* reason for their investments
> would be to receive at-cost objects such as hamburgers).
>
> The cashier would give you a receipt showing you now have (within a
> future vesting window) $2 invested in more land, water rights, 
> calves,
> and also toward paying wages, etc.
>
> As you continue to gain ownership (and as you also continue to pay
> recurring costs on what you already own), you will eventually go to
> the new restaurant your overpayments help to create, and you will 
> show
> your ownership credentials to prove you already own a prepared
> hamburger as a result of your ownership in the entire tree of it's
> production.
>
> When the investors will accept the objects themselves (say beer) as
> compensation for the risk they took, there is no sale because the end
> user already paid all the costs of production, and owns the objects 
> as
> a side-effect of those commitments.
>
> And since there is no sale, Profit doesn't even have a chance to 
> enter
> the picture.
> And without a sale there is no attack-point for external governments 
> -
> and so no sales tax.
>
>
> http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent is a subset or simplified
> version of this.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Patrick Anderson
> http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
>
>
> We can also eliminate wages by committing to swap of skills within a
> "closed-loop, user-owned production aggregate" *before* production
> begins.  I call it pre-barter.
> _________________________________
> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
> Contact: [email protected]

_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]