On 10/19/2016 01:25 PM, mray wrote:
> You are partially misrepresenting my point here.
> I agree that time, money, attention are limited resources.
> I reject that they have to be spend either one *OR* the other way:
> One can pay for Photoshop but also donate to Gimp. An increased Adobe
> market share is bad for GIMP but a better funded GIMP poses a bigger
> threat to Adobes dominance. It cuts both ways DESPITE mutual influence.
> You can go both ways at the same time.

I think the easiest way to clarify is: they are RIVALS, as in time,
money, attention are *rivalrous* resources. There is a competition for
these things and they *can* be in a state where giving them to one
project removes them from the others even though you're right it's not
*necessarily* at that point.

Similarly, projects at Snowdrift.coop are in some competition for these
same rivalrous resources of time, money, attention. As we've discussed
in the past, there is no *need* for some projects at Snowdrift.coop to
fail in order for others to succeed, but there *is* a rivalrousness here
where we *do* accept and even celebrate the way crowdmatching helps
allocate resources when they do reach the state of being in direct

I want to express somewhere (not in the video) that there *is* a dilemma
of how to allocate these rivalrous resources where the public benefit
comes from maximizing the support of public goods where individual
benefit may come from paying tolls and attention to the well-funded club
goods (but doing so takes rivalrous resources that then leaves less
potential available for public goods)

>> In the end, I still want to and *will* spread the message that club
>> goods are a tragedy, the toll-road choice itself means someone doesn't
>> freeride on the public road but *is* avoiding the public road and still
>> not helping. You cannot drive on both roads at once (or have one road be
>> in both states at once).
> You can drive on both roads at once. See above.

No, you literally cannot drive on two roads at the same time. You can
use them both at different times, but you cannot drive on two roads at
once, that is just not possible.

Although it doesn't map perfectly to every situation, the two roads
dilemma does highlight the rivalrousness that is real. You do not watch
two movies at the same time. Or if you do, you have divided attention.
You have limited attention, and giving it to one movie at a particular
time means less available for a different movie. I can't imagine anyone
sincerely disagreeing with that assertion.

> I think A. is much better.
> 1. It is simple short and easy.
> 2. We convince with what is good about us, not by what is bad about others.

This is the core issue. I'm pretty convinced that A is better for right
now and for this video. I'm 100% convinced that A is acceptable in any case.

I still want B to be available, I will describe B somewhere sometime in
some writing or such. I think B is more compelling in the fundamental
way that "I fucking hate those sleazy ads!" is compelling. But it is

To use a different metaphor, A is like me saying "there's some nice
aspects to co-ops, but here's some challenges and ideas that co-ops face
(that don't apply to other businesses)". B is like me saying "co-ops are
ethical and just, typical capitalist businesses where an owner dictates
terms to the workers and clients have ethical problems X, Y, Z, and they
shouldn't exist, we should only have co-ops."

To apply that to a strong example: A: "we built a co-op taxi service
that uses a FLO app to increase efficiency and work in a more reliable
way than traditional taxis!" versus B. "GPS and software organizing taxi
service is superb, but Uber getting an effective monopoly with lock-in
and dictated top-down terms is awful, That's why we built this co-op
version of that sort of service; and we all should work to support this
ethical vision and reject Uber!"

I see why there are good arguments for going with A, but people *should*
recognize and experience the B argument, and it's a view I happen to hold.

At any rate, I insist that we accept and welcome B for at least
something to have available in our arsenal and for whenever we get
questions that are best answered by B. It's the stronger way to insist
that what we're doing *really* matters (because club goods are NOT
OKAY). But for the video, we need to stick with A. A is also safer
because it is less divisive (and it's simpler).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Design mailing list

Reply via email to