All Recent Open Source Thoughts

Suggestion

I have found it a bit like travelling through a maze to work out how to post something.

I am grateful to be here

While finding my way, I wondered why the most simple thing such as 'post an idea' wasn't a little tiny cloud next to the big 'open thource' cloud in the top left.

Decentralising the web

Have u ever thought about taking p2p to the next level where it doesn't just work for file sharing and across your internet line, but that it uses whatever networking receiving devices you have and turns them into portable network hosts / dns servers / content providers  and general web users all in one?

One night I had this thought of how the internet one day could tone down a bit... or that a new type of internet would be born. One that helps the local community more than it does helps you connect to whole world wide web at large.

I came to thinking about this when I was living in isolation in Northern Rivers NSW during the disastrous floods of 2007/08 in the region. Power lines were out. Phones were dropping out. My internet was obviously down. Things could have been worse... my neighbors who were on slightly lower ground were ontop of their roofs waiting for evacuation. I was on a hill.

With a disconnected internet, I pondered. I was also alone. I wanted to be connected to the world but the infrastructure in place was too rigid to adapt to a severely changing environment.

I thought "wouldn't it be cool, if my wireless network card could just tap into the neighbors house... and the neighbors house could just tap into the next wireless connection ... and eventually a wireless stream into the web could be made".  Going beyond the copper wires. Internet sharing...nothing revolutionary here, I know... but its more than that... its going from sharing your connection to the web, to being a bandwidth provider and connector into the web.

I am an idealist.

Then I went further into thinking about this. I wanted to be a realist. How could this be practical. What does the internet look like to a community of vegetable growers? Could you foresee that potentially the internet may decentralise... and that instead of hosting your blog on dreamhost in america, your blog is hosted on your laptop. And that potentially, you are more likely to find new relevant content not via remote search engines, but via the proximity of web connected providers of this network in your close physical vicinity?

For example, to the core grass roots internet user, its about accessing information you need. The farmer over the hill maybe needs to update his local community on how many pumpkins he has and how much he wants for it. That's about it. I think more and more communities will begin to adopt their own independant internet that exists free of the controlled IP paradigm. I think that has time progresses and the world becomes dense enough we will all probably have enough wireless cards to just run our own p2p internet that can achieve everything we use the internet for now, but with 0 wires and no more rollout costs other than your own internet device.

Perhaps as I drive through your subburb you see (should my settings be public) my blog and latest thoughts I've been having. Potentially sitting in a cafe you could quickly get to know some things about somebody they are open to having you know. Orientation. Addictions. Likes. etc.

It seems scary... but what is scary here but the truth? I have wondered if the internet we have where we can access everything at all times is an unrealistic and potentially quite impractical model. I'm not saying down with the web or anything like that. From the costs saved from more people shifting to a p2p airwave kind of traffic there could be money invested into radio signal boosters around the place. If you do need to tap into the outer world of the WWW then maybe the meter starts and the charging begins.

What I am suggesting here is that potentially, to many people in the world the only internet they need is for their local hub of actual real world people. In times of need, its more important to be able to let your neighbours know that you need a boat of food more than you need to tap into youtube. Our current internet doesn't really encourage this kind of usage, although it can be done, to actually find your local hub generally requires an internet pathway of going to other places around the world first. Thats cool. Its a vital system. However when that goes down, when your computer doesn't naturally seek out the information on your local block / terrain, what good is it? Its like having a map to explore jupiter.


What do YOU think?


Thanks for your time,

Bobby

rakuli,

That's good; i mean the 'waves'. I call them 'giddies' for the giddiness, the feeling of instability, they seem to produce in me when I encounter an idea (or worse, make one up) that is way out-of-the-box from what I am accustomed to thinking about on a particular subject. The feeling used to make me apprehensive. Now, I use it as a barometer of how embedded my own thought was in old paradigms that must be relinquished in order to appreciate a new paradigm or idea. It often tells me something about where I was coming from, and I liken the feeling to having a foot in both camps and swinging back and forth between them. The old idea is ingrained and doesn't want to let go - its a conservative impulse and has its own value for that reason. A new paradigm can only set up that reaction when it is, for some reason, truly compelling - then it competes fairly, on its merits, with the old paradigms.

Turning to your question, I think the matter does raise questions about the nature of 'relative wealth'. My instinct tells me that the resolution lies in the fact of separating out something that isn't much touched upon. This is how I put it in another paper:

"A succinct rendering of my complex thoughts about a just and humane economics has always alluded me. I got it down to my 'National Service' program, but could not put my finger on where, in our present view, things got torqued. Then, it finally dawned on me:

Marx identified the problem nexus as the question: "Who owns the means of production?"

That still has importance with regards to things like preventing the damage corporate structures do, through their manipulations and through their product offerings, pricing, toxicity, pollution and the like. But, all that is irrelevant when it comes to labor, which was what Marx was talking about and why capitalism is so fiercely opposed to his program. The question for labor is not "Who owns the means of production"; but, rather,

"Who owns the means of survival?"

Even with the farsightedness to provide an answer such as, 'the worker owns the means of survival by virtue of his ability to work', the hidden agenda of conventional economics remains, "Yes, but it is only through attaching that ability to the means of production that his survival can be realized." From that viewpoint, the argument becomes a self-referencing tautology and we're back to the question "Who owns the means of production?". That is exactly the Gordion Knot which my proposal [ie. 'National Service'] unties. It removes the means of survival, and only that, from dominance by the means of production (en toto), whether it be a communist or capitalist structure that claims ownership.

Though my proposal achieves the required separation between the means of survival and the means of production, until now I never saw that clearly and did not understand exactly how the trick was accomplished. Only that I had found one way of accomplishing it. Now I can see why my solution, though it may not be the most elegant, is a stunning achievement. I don't think the problem has ever really been understood in these terms. - r"

In my 'National Service' proposal, the basic 'survival elements' are listed as modest provision of food, shelter, health care, transportation, information, and education. These are the basic stuffs of life, without out which any other test of wealth must collapse - the person who suffers from deprivation in one of these areas cannot compete at all.  The 'everyone else is at the same place as me' notion simply fails to be applicable to those who suffer starvation, exposure, ignorance, isolation or disease. So, the first grade on the platform of relative wealth is whether those being compared stand on a footing from which they can survive and participate in any discussion of wealth beyond those basics.

After that, the 'grubstake' idea does not imply any statement about how those who share an 'equal start' in life with everyone else will use their capital. Will they squander it, invest it, save it? Will they increase its value or diminish it over time?  Will they try their best and still fail?  Will small turns of fortune make large differences?  No one can say.  So, while the initial state under the 100% formula does say that everyone begins with an equal dip into the largess of the society into which they were born, nothing is changed about those who will find that their grubstake makes them relatively wealthy, and those that find it did them little good. It only says, no one gets a whopping advantage at the expense of everyone else - that's what the present system of inheritance says.  It says, if, by accident of birth, you are born into circumstances of wealth (or poverty) you will start out with advantages (or disadvantages) which had nothing to do with you at all. 

The second part of your question is a little out of my competence. I'm not really certain about the effects on inflation and such matters. It really needs a bonafide economist to sort that out.  My first thought is that the proposal does not create any new wealth or credit, it merely redistributes it from one generation to the next.  I would guess that part of the answer lies in whether the 'market' will simply try to advantage itself (as it often does) by attempting get whatever it can from the consumer. This is a clear aberration of the principle of 'supply and demand' and one that is rampant in unconstrained economies.  Still, it happens. 

However, since wealth is simply parceled out in smaller packets to a much larger number of consumers, I think the real shifts would be in the valuation of 'luxury goods' which demand market-price based on large excesses of disposable-income among a very few. Big-ticket luxury items would probably suffer the greatest hit and be forced to adjust downward, or disappear altogether. I think the proposal does allow for a much clearer picture of 'real-world' wealth, and that is a healthy thing, I would think.  It means that top-end goods which can no longer be supported were things that world could not really afford anyway -- they were goods that were bought at the expense of other people's necessities.  Would ordinary goods, foodstuffs, housing and the like be priced upwards as well, to capture as much of the largess from ordinary grubstake recipients as possible?  If this idea is coupled with the 'National Service' proposal, the answer is a definite no. The market will no longer be able to threaten consumers' survival and price-gouge them for necessities. For the rest of it, I simply don't know. But, at least the consumer will have the option not to buy if they think the price too dear, and that is the way a real 'free market' should work.

Finally, the 100% proposal only touches a small number of people in any given year (those who are born/become adults in any given year, and those who die in a given year. What %of of the population or its wealth is that?  I don't know the answer, off-hand, but I imagine its small enough that such ill effects can be absorbed and leavened by the economic activity of the rest of population.   


Again, I'm not an economist, so I don't have any real answers. I do wish there was one on board here. (is there one?)  - r.

 

It is interesting the waves I go through when I think about this topic. I read it for the first time quite a few days ago and have come back to read it again on a few occasions. The reason I have not replied with my thoughts before this point is that I have been unable to take up a position for or against the idea; the waves have me swaying backwards and forwards as quickly as I can begin a paragraph of response.

My initial reaction was "Fantastic idea!". This was what I expected it would be having only read this topic's title. I expected my reaction to be this because I am from a family that was not left any, and will most likely not leave any monetary wealth to the next generation. Emotional and sentimental wealth is everywhere but my family has barely had as it is let alone excess to pass on via inheritence. The point I am making is that my initial judgement of the idea was biased by a not-so-well-off entry into adult citizenship.

A bit of extra financial assistance could have made many things - such as education, living arrangements etcetera - easier. At about the time I was thinking how it could have been easier, one of the waves came that made me ask myself "Would it have been easier? Everyone else your age would have had the same advantage. Would you have made the same choices and had you made different ones, would you have been as happy with them?". If everyone gets wealthier (financially this is), no one does. It is a sad fact that wealth is relative, if the average wage is a million dollars then a millionaire is 'Joe' next door.

A point that gets my philosophical gears moving is the benefit that may arrive if such a tax became the norm.

Picture:

"
I am an incredibly successful businessman, I earn and continue to earn more than enough to support myself and my family. I know that the money I have today, will be distributed among the community when I die, it will go towards spreading the opportunities that I had around to all. My money will eventually help the community but why should I wait? I can take this money now and put it towards the community now.
"

Perhaps an absurd monologue but the general idea is that wealth may not be seen as something to sit on and grow; if a death tax will distribute it for you anyway, why not spread it around while it's in your warm living hand?

Again, as I write I still experience the waves sending me both ways on this topic. I would be interested to see your thoughts on how the 'grubstake' could benefit and not fall victim to the inflationary wealth problem that sees everyone increase in wealth by the same factor meaning no change occurs at all.

On the surface, a pretty straight-forward proposal.

The 100% "Death-tax": Equitable Distribution of Wealth

All proceeds from the estates of individuals who have died in a given year are redistributed to all persons obtaining their citizenship* during that same year.

There is no such thing as personal inheritance - wealth is returned to the society as a whole and redistributed to its new members in equal portions as a ‘grubstake’ upon reaching their majority. The current mythology proposes that all will get wealthier from the largess and generosity of a few. This proposal says that the wealthier one gets, the more there will be for all (including their own children and grandchildren).


---------------
* in another proposal I make the suggestion that citizenship become an earned privilege rather than a conferred right. For this purpose, it can just as well be taken to mean "upon reaching voting age."


Some points of departure for discussion:

1. historical: Where did the idea originate that personal inheritance and bequest was to be the sole model for how cultures or societies were to progress and reinvest the product of the past into the future? The economic structure (Socialist, Capitalist, Communist or some variant) does not change this seemingly universal implementation. Whether personal legacy becomes the property of other individuals or of some more abstract entity such as "the state", its distribution still depends entirely on schema devised by the system (which may be more or less equitable; but, are rarely, if ever, equitable).

2. philosophy: Society as a whole, as the structure which actually creates wealth through its schema of transactions, legal conventions and distributions of resources (inclusive of education and knowledge transfer) may be said to be the original and continuing 'creditor' of wealth; and, that wealth only appears to be created by individuals within the society. This is separate from the ideas of marxist/socialist canon which claim such wealth as their own during the period of time (an individual's lifetime) that persons 'borrow from it' for their own applications.  Seen in this way, it would be a natural and non-confiscatory activity for a society to reclaim such wealth upon the death of an individual and to redistribute it equitably back into the society as a whole. That 'society', my proposal suggests, is not every individual nor to the works of the state (which would make such distribution a 'tax'), but to new members upon reaching their majority or adult citizenship. This, it seems to me, makes the bequest an investment in the future which I think befits the proper usage of any legacy. It goes without saying that this distribution would make some allowance for those who were truly dependent on that wealth and needed to be sustained; at least until they can be retrained or otherwise become independent and self-sustaining.

3. anthropological:  at present, I know of no cultures which have dealt with the actual transference of wealth between generations in this fashion. I would be interested if any have, and what the results of such treatment were.  If not, then what I am suggesting would seem, indeed, a species of cultural evolution without precedent.

4. thorny issues remain:  The schemes to circumvent this prescription would, of course, be myriad. People would simply attempt (from some basically 'family-centric' selfish impulse?) to insure that their wealth was transferred to others before their death (as we now do with living-trusts and the like). How could this be dealt with?  Second, if projections of logarithmic increases in life-span are correct, fewer and fewer people will be dying each year and the pot to be distributed would get proportionally smaller.  These and other questions are what I call 'administrative details', though not less important for that.  Still, I think the first step is to examine the main proposition and see if and where it falls apart. Then, one can tackle these and other problems of implementation.

Karl, Rakuli, et. al.

Here is the summary of my basic idea which is very similar, I think, to Karl's. After that I will offer a brief comparison of the two proposals. In a separate (because of its length) post, I will offer some further discussion of my 'eco-labeling' idea in the form of a reply I once made to someone regarding a few questions they had about it. First the idea:


----------------------

Eco-labeling: Resource Conservation and Preservation as a Marketplace Mechanism.

The costs of all direct and indirect resource and environmental impacts must be included in the price of each product and clearly given on its label. That cost must be directly related to the total consumer price of the product such that, the more a producer controls the cost of impacts (pollution, resource depletion, energy extraction, etc.) the lower the cost of the environmental 'surcharge' and, therefore, the product.

The portion of the price associated with the eco-label costing is to be invested in a dedicated fund solely for the purpose of repairing and mitigating damage done by a product, from its manufacture and on through its use or consumption. The relation between eco-costing and production should be such that all products will, over time, become impact-neutral. The better a producer controls such costs, the lower the unit price of the product and the better it will compete in the marketplace.

-----------------------
A little comparison:

Yes, indeed, the 'eco-cents' proposal by Karl is very much along the lines of my 'eco-labeling' proposal.  I think the primary difference is that I viewed the matter as more than a mechanism that would rely on the good 'cents' of consumers, "market pressure", to buy products that were environmentally less noxious because they would cost less. The piece I add is that the additional eco-surcharge on a product will be directly applied to the remediation of damage that is done by its manufacture, distribution and/or use.  In that way, products not only have an competitive advantage if they reduce their environmental boot-print on the planet, but that those that don't are still required to bear the costs of clean up. That is, products which do more damage and therefore cost more than their competitors, not only are less competitive but will also be required to have a net-zero (or better) impact on the environment via their eco-cost contribution. Those that don't comply are still forced to clean up their mess (i.e., pay for its remediation).

I think that what Karl and I are saying identically is that the core of unconstrained environmental impact derives from it being kept hidden and removed from easy and visible market place valuation. It is by this means that these costs are deceptively and deftly shifted onto taxpayers, or those who suffer from the impacts. It is a tab which we pick up in toxic-cleanup, emergency rooms and health-care costs, global changes in climate, water and air quality and so forth.

It is the 'hiddeness' of things that allow these maneuver's to take place. 'carbon-credit' schemes still retain this 'hidden' character that relies largely on the shuffling of paper behind the scenes and the deflection of responsibility away from its source. Though I understand Euro carbon-credit programs have had some success, it is only a matter of time before the producing sector finds the get-arounds and legal sleight-of-hands to change the benefits of compliance into the mere appearance of compliance. Eco-costing and labeling puts the matter out- front where everyone can see it, every consumer must choose and where every failure must be accounted for and its accountability applied directly to the solution.  Most importantly, I think Karl and I are both suggesting that it is a capitalist mechanism which must be used to grapple with this problem on capitalism's own terms. Visible costing and remediation seems to fit the bill.

The thorny part of the matter is in the mechanism that evaluates and fixes these costs that all products sold in this country (imported or domestic) must pay. It must be entirely insulated from questions of economics and marketplace whinings, incorruptible, and allied only with the science organizations, universities and independent researches from which it will make its estimates of eco-cost. That's a very tall order. One I am sure huge teams of lawyers and lobbyists will attempt to assault from every direction. It will need to withstand those assaults. We have seen how 'economic considerations' have trumped every decision about health, safety and environment over the past 1/4 century.

Even in the current debacle of  bailouts for AIG, the matter is entirely left in the hands of some "macro-economic" consideration, to the point of violating the very rules by which the principles claim to be the bedrock of their own system - free markets. Ironically, it is the very 'hiddeness' of AIG's business dealings (especially in risk-taking and risk-assesment) that brought about the difficulty. Had people known about their liquidity problems, they might never have inflated the investment folio of the company.  The disappearance of AIG will not bring the economy of the world to its knees. Indeed, since AIG claims assets much greater than its current obligations, the market would normally require that AIG sell those assets to cover their obligations (the same as individual's are forced to do to pay their obligations). At the end of the day, AIG would simply be much smaller enterprise (the size it really ought to be without all the leveraging and margin props that made it seem so much larger than it really is).  In any event, those who would serve on an eco-costing board would need to be entirely insulated from such "economic" concerns - costs would be costs, and no amount of shuffling should be able to hide them. There activity would have to be entirely transparent to the public. Companies, of course, could make their best case about their own products, but that's about it.  Science reports would not be edited, costs would not be deferred or hidden and "making jobs" would not be an excuse for ducking responsibility. Their eco-costs would be right on the package where all could see them and pay them if they wished to buy our use the product.   

Anyway, though fraught with implementation difficulties (what I call 'administrative details') I think Karl and I both are suggesting something that cuts to the core of the matter in a way which applies the methods of the system to cure on of its own evils. - red       

Hi red,

I've myself haven't been giving the site as much attention as I should/would like and have taken your feedback on board regarding the 'hidden' new thought link... I will work on that asap.

As far as this post above, if you're happy to just speak with me, I am interested in all of the above. Most notably the Eco-labelling -- Perhaps a similar idea has been posted here? -- and the 100% Death-tax which sounds like a wall of controversy but very interesting.

ah, I finally found where the 'new-post' dialog box lives...

Thource seems relatively inactive. But, in case anyone is tuned in and interested here are a few topics which I have an interest and for which opinion and feedback, thoughts would be useful. If any of these items have real interest for someone else, let me know and I'll post it:

- 'National Service' - a proposal which ends the concept of both poverty and welfare and suggests a framework in which the citizens of a country my achieve life-time security without unfairly burdening others.

- 'Repatriation Schools' - a proposal for solving immigration problems which does not demean or criminalize the undocumented, yet promotes a real long-term solution and compels the countries of origin to deal with matters in their own systems.

- 'Eco-labeling' a long-term solution to solving the problem cleaning up the environment and ending pollution and toxcicity that uses capitalist methods rather than opposing them.

- 'The 100% Death-tax - a proposal that offers a method for redistributing wealth in a manner that both the rich and poor can participate, yet ends the cycle of obscene disparity between the two classes.

I've got a bunch of others, but let's start there and see if any one wishes to get a new topic activated.

- red

That's a great couple of posts, whether simply an outlet for your own long-lost ponderings or otherwise. I cannot respond further without looking into references provided by Mike and yourself but I appreciate the time you've taken and look forward to further discussions on this and many other topics.

The little man in my mind has some reading to do

Ha!

Such was my reason for creating this site in the first place, I don't think too deeply before posting such a controversial revelation.

At the time I was a bit annoyed at having been banned from everywhere but my own patio and I was also trying to give up. It was a nasty situation. Making the things illegal isn't really going to help anyone; but I still feel that the legislations that are being brought in to remove smokers from everywhere are bordering on makin it illegal anyway.

If it comes down to me only being allowed to smoke in my own premises, how much different is this from heroin or cocaine? The difference is that the government won't get taxes from my smack purchases and I might have to walk a bit further than the corner store.

Rakuli,

Part of the problem here may be that we're dealing with two different branches of 'emergence' and the place of 'dreamtime' within the concept of 'fact'.  One branch (largely motivated by human wish-lists) is a story-telling/story-making mode. Quite legitimate in its own write (sp intentional). In the appendix of one of my own works (http://home.comcast.net/~redslider/Ballad/chap_xE.htm) I wildly indulge that branch of 'emergence' theory - in fact, I do it as a means of describing human emergence itself. But it is pure fancy associated with a poem of pure invention - facts are not in play (except that I very carefully checked facts - celestial, geographical, cultural, etc. - that are employed in the work itself).  But, for the most part it is whooey - though always with the proviso that 'Yesterday's whooey may become tomorrow's...!   Suffice to say, I withdrew from investing any real credibility to the inventions of the 60's and 70's that proposed everything from alien-buddies for specially nice people (invariably the speaker included) to the sounds of wisdom signifying empty homilies (Seth Books, ad naseum) Still read and enjoyed and was sometimes provoked to useful consideration of much of that stuff (i.e. it does contribute to the richness of our culture and enjoyment), but as something to eat, naaaaaa.

The other branch, however, considers emergence as part of a chain of being that is much in evidence and for which much evidence is given.  It is Darwinian/Lamarkian in nature; it is rooted in hard factual physical and biological data; there is a large body of scientific and philosophical work on the subject; and, it appears to be a meta-category of how mind and universe work that cannot be ignored if one of the goals of the project is to seek useful, verifiable, predictable and reliable explanations for just what kind of things we are. At heart, it postulates that no progress in the matter (or perhaps any matter) can be made if we don't, in some way, attend to the subject of 'becoming' as a process that is a factual property of everything we encounter and which intrinsically implies 'emergence' as a feature.

Now, that's a whole different branch of the theory and practice of emergence. I can think of work such as:

           - Langer: Essay on Mind
           - Gould:  Panda's thumb
           - Piaget: Theory of Ontogenic Intelligence
           - Leary (when he wasn't doing 'cult' leader clowning) Psychologic
           - Randall: Warped Passages
           - Sahlin's and Service:  Evolution and Culture
           - Derrida, Levi-Strauss et. al.: Take your pick
           - Tart: Altered States
           - Ornstein: Any of his mind-brain books or popularizations.
           - William James: his 2-vol Philosophy of course
           - Kuhn: The Structure of Science
           - and on and on and on.....

These are not wishful crackpots. All have hard-won credentials, did serious work
and somehow had to come to terms with the properties of emergence that were escaping the net of our 'fact-filled' enclave. W

Work in genetics is now identifying actual locations that may be sites of future properties of mind and body. I suspect, before long we will be identifying locations that may play a part in identifying properties whose realization cannot be understood simply because we don't yet have them.

Anyway, this is the branch of emergence-studies and emergence-philosophy which is intimately attached to facts ('emergent facts'?) of science and world (philosophy) that are well-confirmed, if not well-understood. Where does 'dreamtime' fit in?  Well, I think the jury's out on that subject. As I suggested in my other post, there's more to the subject than James Merrill's ouija board (The Changing Light at Sandover) can account for. Perhaps one of the first matters that needs to be addressed is how does one distinguish between the two branches? What are properties of physical and psycho-physical emergence as opposed to ephemeral and psycho-inventive emergence?  We might also ask (in the same spirit as we inquire about mind-body connections) what, if any, is the connection between the two? Do they share some inter-informative property that serves to configure one or both of their respective realms? Do they prefigure one another in some measurable way? I can think of examples, but make no suggestions here. What I am suggesting is perhaps we need, for now, to focus on the noun, 'emergence' before we tackle the verb, 'emergence'.

Of course, there is a final question, but for me alone. It is, 'is there anything of current interest in this little ramble for me; or, is it just another closet of my mind which I once visited decades ago, but has long since had the lights off and the door shut. Perhaps it should stay that way, I've other things I wish to explore....  - red

-----------------
if I could say with a certainty
what was emergent,
I would demolish the subject.