Talk:Logic of the Market versus the Logic of the Commons

--Poor Richard (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC): I agree with much here and take issue with much, too. I like the contrasting attribute-value pairs in the "Comparative Table: The Logic of the Market versus the Logic of the Commons" but I would change the column headings from "Market" and "Commons" to something like "Bad" and "Good" or "Antisocial" and "Social" and the title to something like "The logic of aggression versus the logic of cooperation."

I differ with all the following: "The commons has yet to develop its own grand narrative. But here are some well identified essentials. First of all, it moves beyond the classic dichotomies of the haves and have-nots, of owners and non-owners, of public and private. It includes the missing third element: the commoners or usergroups, the co-owners..."

On the contrary, there are multiple grand narratives of the commons, but few default "essentials" common to all. For any commons except that of the universe there is enclosure (inside and outside, members and non-members, haves and have-nots, etc.) On the other hand, the "missing third element, "usergroups, co-owners, etc., are common features of every property scheme known to mankind.

From the same source: "Enclosure is more than “privatization”, “commercialization” or “development pressure” triggered by “path dependency”. The term “enclosure” captures the disempowerment of people and social disruptions, which use to trigger situations, that are difficult to roll back. You may compare it to the dismantling of public transport infrastructures. Once you remove the rail network in a country, you will not be able to manage to re-open public transport by train. It’s gone."

On the contrary enclosure can work in either direction, for or against the public good, as for example in the "second enclosure movement" that includes free software, free culture, community land trusts, etc. And infrastructures come and go and come again as societies go through cyclical trends, fads, bubbles, etc.

I expect that a fair number of links radiating from this wiki category contain similar semantic, ontological, factual, etc. problems (i.e. "noise") which leads to a signal-to-noise ratio that is IMO generally too high in this category, especially in a good portion of the writing dealing specifically with "the commons" and with questions of ownership and property from a primarily philosophical approach. Sadly there is far too little crossover or crossreferencing between the rapidly proliferating philosophically-oriented discussions of property and the vast body of literature on the actual jurisprudence of property which exhaustively dissects every form of property ownership with which mankind has ever experimented throughout the history of civilization!

In short, the gist of my rant is there is too little due diligence and information quality control in this important public discussion.

--Poor Richard (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

using obfuscated urls to avoid captcha error:

almanac2010 dot wordpress dot com/2010/10/11/disenclosure-of-the-commons/

almanac2010 dot wordpress dot com/2011/04/22/all-ownership-is-conditional/

--Poor Richard (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)