On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 22:32 +1100, ianG wrote: > The market solves "fair" by giving people a choice. Either they buy at > the market-clearing price where supply crosses demand, or they go > elsewhere. In such a definition, "fair" doesn't really capture anything > of use. Get back to first principles.
This is an extremely tired libertarian-type argument, and the corresponding leftist-type tired argument is that the choices people have are not real choices, because the set of choices is limited (it isn't possible to opt out of the exchange economy) and because practical factors (like the need to survive) act as coercing influences towards some choices rather than others. I don't contribute to this list often, because I'm just a student trying to learn more about p2p systems. I'm butting in now because there are two ways this conversation could go from here: it could re-hash existing arguments, or it could take the domain expertise of people on this list and create something valuable from it. Anyone who wants to have the Standard Economic Choice Debate can read some Milton Friedman screed and some Noam Chomsky screed and call it a day. I suggest we (read: you, plural, list denziens) do better. To suggest a new direction, how would a p2p system implement either policy, how have p2p systems implemented policies in the past, and how have those implementations fared in reality? (My apologies if these questions are naive, I'm far less an expert than most on this list.) -- Sent from Ubuntu
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
