Talk:User Owner Project

From Open Source Ecology
Jump to: navigation, search

There is a special economic case that occurs when the Owner of some Physical Sources (the material Means of Production) are also the Users of the Object[ive]s (output, product, purpose) of that production.

Case 1: Single-User, Single-Owner

INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources (say an apple tree and 'supporting' sources such as land, water rights, tools) is the ONLY User of the Object[ive]s (apples, shade, wood):

  • This base case is meant to show why Object Users should be Source Owners.
  • The Owner of the Physical Sources (tree, etc.) is also the Owner of the Object[ive]s (apples, etc.) even before production is complete.
  • The Owner has full control over the Object[ive]s because he is also the Owner of the Physical Sources. If the Owner doesn't want dangerous chemicals sprayed, there are no questions asked.
  • Abundance for others is not a problem, as the Owner seeks use-value (consumption), not exchange-value (profit).
  • The Owner may choose to do any or all of the work.
  • The Owner may pay a Worker to install, maintain, operate the Physical Sources, but the Owner cannot pay more than Costs (wages are a cost) except as an investment toward future production (say buying another tree or more land or more water rights or more tools, etc.).
  • Unemployment is not a problem, the Owner wants all chores automated away.
  • Ownership of Physical Sources is (imperfect) insurance that future Object[ive]s will be met.

Case 2: Multi-User, Multi-Owner

COLLECTIVE Owners Physical Sources are SOME of the Users of the Object[ives]:

  • This most important case covers the difficulties of Co-Ownership.
  • All points of Case 1 apply.
  • The Owners may charge Non-Owning Users a price above cost. This may cause the Owners to seek scarcity of others (destroy all competitors) because reducing competition increases profit. This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.
  • Non-Owning Users do not have control. This is balanced by treating profit as an investment from the User who paid it.
    • Question: What is the significance of 'treating profit as investment from User who paid it'?
      • Answer: This causes every User to gain Co-Ownership in Physical Sources (he now owns a tiny % in some new trees being planted for him and other non-owning users that are paying price above cost). The ability for current Owners to collect profit against this User in the future (after his investment starts producing) is then reduced because that User will own as many "at-cost" Objects (apples) as his % of Physical Sources (tiny slice of the apple orchard) produces. This may seem insignificant, but it adds up, and 'balances' the system. By understanding profit to be a User's investment, we see his 'investments' (profit) tapers toward zero as he gains Ownership in Physical Sources because that Source Ownership also automatically gives him Object Ownership, and those Objects are a replacement (competition) for some of what the current Owners were selling. As this settles, competition approaches perfection and no Objects (apples) even need be sold because the Consumers that need them already Own them even before they are produced because of their sufficient Ownership in the Sources of those Objects. Whew!
  • Owner votes are weighted by their % of ownership in each indivisible Physical Source.
  • Minor groups who lose a vote may split/fork/divide from the majority. If 80% of the Owners want the orchard sprayed, the remaining 20% can opt-out by partitioning off a section of the farm from those chemicals.
    • Question: Is it not desirable to set up a principled approach to simplify governance by injecting some criterion, such as 'only ecological use of land is allowed?' If any disputes arise, they are arbitrated by a Council of Elders, which is an oversight body with no interest in the 'capital'.
  • Solutions to voting, granularity and divisibility can be very complicated, and this needs further discussion, but is not specific to Object Users being Source Owners.

Case 3: Multi-User, Single-Owner

INDIVIDUAL Owner of Physical Sources is ONE of the Users of the Object[ives]:

  • This less important case occurs when the startup (booting) Costs are small enough for any single owner, or can otherwise be organized as Case 2.
  • All points of Case 2 apply.
  • Documenting this case is important for observing the transition between 'public' and 'personal' ownership.
  • The Owner may claim any wage for management or labor he performs while claiming profit (price above cost) is zero. Profit and Wages are not fully separated because there are no other Owners to complain about the Wages being too high.

Case 4: Single-User, Multi-Owner

  • This is an unlikely case of unknown applicability.

Other Ideas

When this is running we will no longer need to "prop-up" wages because workers will push them higher through their ability to "hold out" when their consumption is protected when they have ownership in the sources of their own needs.

Investment from Object Users (price above cost or 'profit') is high in the early stages of development, but approaches zero as each citizen (consumer) gains their own percentage of real ownership in the Physical Sources of production.

One way to approach this is through a legally binding Social Contract that Owners could apply a to collective Physical Sources so profit would always be interpreted as User Investment whenever the products were given, rented, shared, sold or traded.

This inter-owner Trade Agreement should allow maximum divisibility so any user may opt-out or 'fork' their portion to treat it differently without needing the approval of all other owners. For instance, let's say you have gained ownership in beef cattle because you paid PriceAboveCost for hamburgers. You may vote (weighted by your % of ownership) on how ALL those animals are treated as a group, but if you have some special goals that few other owners would agree on, you can also *DIVIDE* out a realistic portion from the whole if your ownership is large enough to meet the minimum granularity. So if you want your animals to be fed grass instead of grain, the granularity would be at one animal, since it is impossible to feed part of an animal one diet, and the other portion another... In another case, if you are only concerned about how the meat is packaged, then the granularity is much finer, and you should be able to meet those goals - though it would be your responsibility to organize that division and to pay any extra costs (such as wages) required to do any extra work.

Any group of co-owners will disagree on policy over shared property.

Some types of 'contiguous' things, such as roads, sewer, water, electricity, gas lines, etc. need more logistic restrictions in their divisibility.

Profit is an inverse measure of competition and a direct measure of monopoly. Profit is the portion of Price, Rent, Tax or Interest that goes beyond real costs. That profit becomes usury unless it is treated as an investment from the consumer who paid it.

Profit should be interpreted as a plea for development because it measures consumer dependence. Usury gained against consumers disrespects their natural desire to grow, so hampers true progress.

Profit collected as a reward for the owners is secondarily troublesome because it inverts the goals of that corporation from abundance and freedom toward scarcity and power.

If your are alone on the island and 20 more people suddenly arrive, how are 'we' going to decide how to collectively manage the available Physical Sources?

Collective ownership as a body - in-corp-oration is the original and only valid purpose of government.

Citizens and consumers are the same, and should be the owners for maximum performance, freedom and peace.

Whether you call it a church, a city, a club, commons, community, company, coop, corporation, county, cult... managing collective property is difficult.

Business and government are separated now only because we understanding that most businesses, especially the larger ones are somehow not fully aligned with the goals of the rest of society. It is the mistreatment of profit that inverts our original goals of peace and abundance.

Owners may accidentally squander their inheritance. 1st-world nations are covered with barren and even poisonous plants and mostly worthless animals - no chickens in the yards and the bees are dying.

Originating Owners hold no special status; each consumer who pays more than cost becomes an investor in Physical Sources to insure their ownership of future Objects.