Los bericht bekijken
Oud 22 januari 2007, 00:16   #19
Phrea|K's schermafbeelding
Geregistreerd: 4 april 2004
Locatie: West Flanders Ideology: Moderate Libertarianism
Berichten: 1.760
Stuur een bericht via MSN naar Phrea|K

't is wel geen academische tekst, maar een eboek: Capitalism 3.0

In tegenstelling tot wat men wellicht denkt bij het zien van de titel, is het geen pro-libertarische propaganda, maar een soort Vivant-achtig pleidooi om het mileu te beschermen via een niew soort eigendomsrechten. Even een korte copy 'n paste van het concept achter de beweging vanop hun website OnTheCommons.org:

Common assets. Those parts of the commons that have a value in the market and which are appropriate to buy and sell (see “inalienability”). Radio airwaves are a common asset, for example, as are timber and minerals on public lands and, increasingly, air and water. By recognizing certain resources as common assets, it is easier to ask: Are the common assets being responsibly managed on behalf of the general public or a distinct community of interest? Is the capital being depleted?

Copyleft. A license that allows free re-use and modification of creative work so long as the derivative work remains available on the same terms. Copyleft — formally known as the “General Public License,” or GPL — was initiated by computer programmer Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation. [link] By protecting the creativity and energy of the commons from private appropriation, the GPL has made free software and open source software possible. A related set of licenses for other types of creative works has been devised by the Creative Commons. [link]

Corporation. A self-perpetuating legal entity whose mission is to maximize short-term return to shareholders. In its aggressive pursuit of this mission, the corporation not only produces new innovations and efficiencies, it also displaces costs onto the environment, our communities and our personal lives (see “market externalities”).

Gift economy. A community of shared purpose, such as an academic discipline, whose members give time and creativity to a defined community and reap benefits in return. In gift communities, money is an unacceptable “currency” because relationships are rooted in personal, particular and historical experiences of each individual, and cannot be converted into cash or any other fungible unit.

Enclosure. The conversion of a commons into private property. Enclosure entails not just the privatization of a resource, but the introduction of money and market exchange as the prevailing principles for managing that resource. Enclosure shifts ownership and control from the community at large to private companies. This in turn changes the management and character of the resource because the market has very different standards of accountability and transparency than a commons. (Contrast a public library with a book store, or Main Street with a private shopping mall.) Because of its compulsion to extract maximum short-term rents and externalize costs, market enclosure often results in the “tragedy of the market.”

Externality, or illth. A social or ecological cost that is not paid by its creators. As the scope of market activity expands beyond a certain point, engulfing more of nature and daily life, it yields less and less happiness and well-being even as it generates more and more unintended problems. By the premises of market logic, the expanding output must be regarded as “progress” and “wealth.” In fact, the accelerating pace of the market machine is producing more “illth” — the opposite of wealth. Author Peter Barnes (Who Owns the Sky) has popularized this term, coined by John Ruskin in the 19th century, to describe the unintended but increasing destruction of nature, social disruptions, health problems and other (unacknowledged or disguised) costs of market activity.

Inalienability. The principle that a given resource shall not be freely bought and sold in the marketplace, but shall remain intact, in its natural context. Inalienability derives from a social consensus that certain things and behaviors are so precious and basic to human identity that they are degraded by allowing their purchase. “Goods” that have traditionally been regarded as inalienable include votes, babies, bodily organs, sex, genes, living species and most aspects of nature, but market forces are increasingly challenging long-standing norms of inalienability.

Public goods. Resources that, because of their “public” nature, are difficult or costly to exclude anyone from using. Examples include lighthouses, city parks, broadcast programming and the global atmosphere. In the lingo of economists, these are “nonrival” and “nonexcludable” resources. Government often steps in to pay for public goods because it is difficult to get individual beneficiaries to pay for them. But in the networked environment of the Internet, it is increasingly feasible for self-organizing groups to create and pay for public goods. Open source software is a prime example.

Public trust doctrine. A legal doctrine that says that the state holds certain resources in trust for its citizens which cannot be given away or sold. Public trust doctrine has its origins in Roman law, which recognized that certain resources such as fisheries, air, running water and wild animals belong to all. Under the doctrine of res communes, the king could not grant exclusive rights of access to a common resource. The point is that there is a clear distinction between common property (which belongs to the people) and state property (which can be conttrolled and mismanaged by government).

Trust. A legal institution for protecting the commons and managing any assets that may arise from them. If the corporation is the preeminent institution of the market, the trust is the premier institution of the commons. The managers of a trust, the trustees, have clear legal responsibilities to manage its resources on behalf of the beneficiaries. This includes strict fiduciary responsibilities, transparency and accountability.

Het boek is zeer kritisch op het huidige kapitalisme, maar gelooft wel in marktwerking (al volgen er in het laatste stuk ook een aantal nogal erg linkse ideeën zoals het kapitaal na de dood vd bezitter (indien hoger dan 1 miljoen euro) voor een deel terug moet vloeien naar de maatschappij (niet de overheid echter), vermits dat individu nooit zo rijk had kunnen worden zonder het bestaan van die samenleving (een individu dat alleen op de planeet leeft zal weinig kapitaalaccumulatie kunnen doen). Het geld zou gebruikt worden om een fonds te sponsoren dat de kinderen die de pech hadden om in een arm gezin te zijn geboren een 'startkapitaal' te garanderen dat de competitie binnen de markt wil bevorderen door al te extreme verschillen qua startpositie die nu bestaan omdat geen enkel kind
kan 'kiezen' of hij/zij in een rijk of arm gezin geboren wil worden voorkomen. Men vergelijkt dit met de 'draft' die bestaat in de baseball-competitie waar het eindklassement vd voorbije competitie als lijst gebruikt wordt om de slechtste teams de eerste keus te garanderen op de markt om zo te voorkomen dat de beste teams zo'n voorsprong opbouwen dat de competitie niet langer spannend genoeg is om het publiek te interesseren (waarvan zowel winnende als verliezende ploegen afhankelijk zijn voor hun inkomsten).

Al bij al staan er een aantal originele ideeën in voor de linkse medemens die zowel kritisch staat tov kapitalisme (in huidige vorm) als tegen ideologiëen die teveel vertrouwen hebben in de Overheid. ( ) Verfrissend, maar niet altijd even realistisch (beetje zoals Vivant dus).
The ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong
will be made not by individual human wisdom
but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the "wrong" beliefs. (F.a. Hayek)
Phrea|K is offline   Met citaat antwoorden