It's odd, anthony, that i think we are of akin mindset, but expressing ourselves very differently. Of interest in this thread is how it pertains to the other current thread on spreading FOSS.
On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Anthony Carrico wrote:
> Let me try again (again, credit to Clay Shirky, "Here Comes Everybody",
> but note that I'm digesting that book slowly--I'm on page 88/304 in ~6mo):
>
> 1. Individuals can make modest achievements.
Individuals, those pushed to the forefront of movements, can make the greatest
achievments of all:)
For the rest of us, we can find like-minded souls to collaborate with to make
our small dent.
> 2. Collaboration is required for more ambitious achievements.
Absolutely.
> 3. The firm, with all its overhead, was a step forward. It allows groups
> to make even more ambitious achievements. Hierarchical management ("The
> Visible Hand") was a key innovation.
I suspect that hierarchical management, like hier education, is taking a
back-seat
to peering, both in business and in school; if those luddites ever get out of
the way.
>
> The firm must survive to be effective at all, so survival must be job
> one for the firm. However, resources spent on survival don't contribute
> to the mission, and therefore are an example of an inefficiency built
> into the model.
What do you consider advertising (branding) to be, if not a way to survive?
Then consider the overhead that ads cost. The entire nike ad budget could feed
a small african country.
>
> The productivity of firms (for-profit, non-profit, whatever) has proven
> to be worth the cost, and currently our social and legal infrastructure
> favors this form of collaboration.
If you aggregate productivity to include all activities performed by the org,
(not just manufacturing or assembly-line work) then i would argue against your
assertion. Weighing 'worth the cost' has to be against profits and if profits
are at the expense of the workers, or its resources obtained at the
expense of the citizens of the host country, or as a result of corp welfare
and non-payment of fair taxes, then 'worth the cost' becomes relative
to 'for whom' and how long the good-times can last.
>
> 4. Our examples (let's not forget Open Street Map) are meant to show
> that even very primitive instances of new models for group effort
> are trumping firms with the clear advantage in terms of legal
> infrastructure, mindshare, and other resources.
Tell that to the Copyright Czar and the legion of lobbists and lawyers
chomping at the bit to defend their clients.
>
> > Yes, I hate to use that tired word 'enabling', but the gist of what we are
> > discussing is how newer tech is permitting people to do more with less and
> > to get around|over traditional org structures to accomplish that...
>
> Simple, and so capitalizing on, studying, or even just being conscious
> of this fact should be a major focus for our generation.
agreed.
>
> We should battle the bias against distributed cooperation built into
> the legal structure of authoritarian free enterprise, and battle the
> descent into socialism. Highlight the alternatives to the powerful, or
> build systems to make them obsolete.
You keep bringing up socialism as if it were a disease. Ever hear of sociocracy?
>
> >> [Beware! Editorial content: worse, our politicians seem to be rapidly
> >> slipping toward socialism. Are we doomed to repeat last century's
> >> mistakes instead of getting on with this century's possibilities?
> >> Disclaimer: I was trained as an engineer, not educated in the liberal
> >> arts. YMMV. I try to keep an open mind].
> > Sorry, no: we are marching headlong into facism, as the recent posts on
> > slashdot
> > will easily bear out. Socialism is what the southern hemisphere is
> > reverting to;
> > denouncing neo-liberalism (corporatism) and spreading the wealth.
> > And they're not repeating anything, but forging a better way (in their HO)
> > foreward;
> > whilst we further enrich those who've plundered our national wealth
> > (read: disaster capitalism)
>
> Socialism is a reaction to authoritarian free enterprise. I would argue
> that socialism concentrates the power in fewer hands so it should be
> more feared. Intellectual property rights--the artificial control of
> ideas--are a tool of both. Spectrum rights--the artificial control of
> the airwaves--are a tool of both. Distributed technology has proven to
> be more efficient in both cases, and yet they persist.
WTF is "authoritarian free enterprise"? a tautology? Socialism is a reaction
to being F---Ked by elites w/out the benefit of a reacharound!
Tsars or coms the size of small nations, makes no difference.
But, for sake of argument, all those S.American countries that are visibly
moving towards MORE socialistic balance are also the ones adopting FOSS
at a pace equalled only by the speed in which the multi-nationals are
being put in their place. What does that tell you?
Sorry, IP rights, as persued by the corptocracy, is perpetuation of
the free-market myths, despite the likes of Leahy voting for it.
Me, I'm more a Goldman anarchist, but your bias is misplaced.
Socialism, like any form of self-governance, has its dangers. But
having socialistic values: to wit - a society that places people over money
has it's merits as well.
Rion
>
> I'm desperately clinging to the notion that the examples in this thread
> are on-topic.
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by
task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same
fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and
scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.
Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes
virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard
there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment,
project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to
be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we
must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could
itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite."
-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
