13 ms·

Re that pg tweet - "Will ownership turn out to be largely a hack people resorted to before they had the infrastructure to manage sharing properly?" We have the

Re that pg tweet - "Will ownership turn out to be largely a hack people resorted to before they had the infrastructure to manage sharing properly?" We have the technology to share the profits of AirBNB right now. The "sharing economy" can work on many levels now that we have the technology. Or we could all share YC, or Google, or even TechCrunch. Who will step up to the plate first, then? That's where this line of thinking goes, universal ownership not just of commodity resources, but of everything. Who will lead us? Note- While I sound satirical, I'm really not. This is the logical and likely necessary progression. And it really does require some leadership.

seacious 13y ago
I'd be careful about assuming that it is necessary just because it seems plausible. Workers rebelling against capitalists and seizing the means of production once also seemed like a logical, necessary progression from the economic system of the time. edit: The material dialectic, if it exists in any meaningful way, is far stranger than we once supposed.
- n0rm 13y ago
  Basically it boils down to (I believe); everyone wants everything and also; nothing is more commonplace as the wish to be remarkable
greggman 13y ago
I'm genuinely curious but how to do prevent abuse with shared stuff? There's lots of people in the world who will abuse, destroy, hog, etc. There was that story about the airbnb sex party just over a month ago as just one example. I'm sure there are good ideas. Maybe that's yet another tech solution? A quick google about abuse of Zipcars brought up this article http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/07/zipcar-users-dont-good-care-cars-new-research-offers-4-lessons-access-economy/ http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/07/zipcar-users-dont-good-c...
- llamataboot 13y ago
  Part of it is about the empathetic circle of concern, and part of it is about reputation. Figuring out ways to both widen the circle of concern and build stronger reputation metrics should help quite a bit. You're not very likely to destroy the chainsaw you are borrowing from your next-door neighbor or your best friend, for example. One could also argue that sole ownership leads to abuse simply because it is "allowed". For example, if you "own" a field, you can salt that field and leave it barren for many years.
- obi-nine 13y ago
  I think that was the point of the reputation economy the article speculated. Much harder to get away with that kind of abuse with a ubiquitous, trustable (ie. decentralized) reputation system.
- dalke 13y ago
  That link makes 4 good points. I'll add another observation - library books. They are "shared stuff" by any definition. Libraries will rebind books to make them more durable and sharable. This suggests that a 5th point is to design shared things for higher amounts of abuse. However, it's much easier to rebind a book than a car.
  - zo1 13y ago
    Don't forget to include a few common and important properties of the library model that I think are very pertinent to this discussion: 1. If you damage the book that you are "borrowing" or "sharing" then you are to pay a fixing/repair fee. 2. Natural degradation/wear & tear of books is covered by a general library fee/subscription.
zo1 13y ago
"This is the logical and likely necessary progression. And it really does require some leadership." You can't just tout your opinion as "logical". We live in the real world, where people have their own opinions and wants/desires. Just because it's "logical" according to you for society to move in a specific direction using a specific political system, doesn't mean that everyone will agree with it, nor that it is logical for them to do so. It's odd how all these political schemes always work in "absolutes", and never allowing anyone to take themselves out of it voluntarily. Hint: If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it.
- nmrm 13y ago
  > If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it. Do you really mean this? It seems completely unrealistic, and is just the flip side of the parent's comment. I don't know of a single political system in the entire world which allows residents to opt out of its legal system, and nor should they. Maybe you mean something rather specific by political system and I just don't understand what you're saying?
  - etherael 13y ago
    Anarchocapitalism is a proposed system matching the description offered (polycentric law). Of course if you opt out of every law other people might not want anything to do with you (freedom of choice works both ways), and your life might end up pretty bad, but more likely in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with.
    - nmrm 13y ago
      > Anarchocapitalism... in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with. This sounds, if anything, less realistic than the OP's proposal. It's also completely vacuous... which ones are obvious? The process of finding a sufficiently acceptable set is called politics.
itbeho 13y ago
Those in "leadership" roles will eventually enrich themselves and their cronies and you're back to having income inequality, but worse than before, since any chance at upward mobility has been removed.
n0rm 13y ago
It's a society that shares everything. Logical mode of thinking suggests that leadership should also be shared. A recent example of this is; San Francisco (I think) municipality opening up it databases to the citizens so that people can figure out a way to get involved in how their living space is governed.
aluhut 13y ago
> Who will lead us? Googles AI of course.

seacious 13y ago

I'd be careful about assuming that it is necessary just because it seems plausible. Workers rebelling against capitalists and seizing the means of production once also seemed like a logical, necessary progression from the economic system of the time. edit: The material dialectic, if it exists in any meaningful way, is far stranger than we once supposed.

n0rm 13y ago
Basically it boils down to (I believe); everyone wants everything and also; nothing is more commonplace as the wish to be remarkable

greggman 13y ago

I'm genuinely curious but how to do prevent abuse with shared stuff? There's lots of people in the world who will abuse, destroy, hog, etc. There was that story about the airbnb sex party just over a month ago as just one example. I'm sure there are good ideas. Maybe that's yet another tech solution? A quick google about abuse of Zipcars brought up this article http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/07/zipcar-users-dont-good-care-cars-new-research-offers-4-lessons-access-economy/ http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/07/zipcar-users-dont-good-c...

llamataboot 13y ago
Part of it is about the empathetic circle of concern, and part of it is about reputation. Figuring out ways to both widen the circle of concern and build stronger reputation metrics should help quite a bit. You're not very likely to destroy the chainsaw you are borrowing from your next-door neighbor or your best friend, for example. One could also argue that sole ownership leads to abuse simply because it is "allowed". For example, if you "own" a field, you can salt that field and leave it barren for many years.
obi-nine 13y ago
I think that was the point of the reputation economy the article speculated. Much harder to get away with that kind of abuse with a ubiquitous, trustable (ie. decentralized) reputation system.
dalke 13y ago
That link makes 4 good points. I'll add another observation - library books. They are "shared stuff" by any definition. Libraries will rebind books to make them more durable and sharable. This suggests that a 5th point is to design shared things for higher amounts of abuse. However, it's much easier to rebind a book than a car.
- zo1 13y ago
  Don't forget to include a few common and important properties of the library model that I think are very pertinent to this discussion: 1. If you damage the book that you are "borrowing" or "sharing" then you are to pay a fixing/repair fee. 2. Natural degradation/wear & tear of books is covered by a general library fee/subscription.

zo1 13y ago

"This is the logical and likely necessary progression. And it really does require some leadership." You can't just tout your opinion as "logical". We live in the real world, where people have their own opinions and wants/desires. Just because it's "logical" according to you for society to move in a specific direction using a specific political system, doesn't mean that everyone will agree with it, nor that it is logical for them to do so. It's odd how all these political schemes always work in "absolutes", and never allowing anyone to take themselves out of it voluntarily. Hint: If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it.

nmrm 13y ago
> If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it. Do you really mean this? It seems completely unrealistic, and is just the flip side of the parent's comment. I don't know of a single political system in the entire world which allows residents to opt out of its legal system, and nor should they. Maybe you mean something rather specific by political system and I just don't understand what you're saying?
- etherael 13y ago
  Anarchocapitalism is a proposed system matching the description offered (polycentric law). Of course if you opt out of every law other people might not want anything to do with you (freedom of choice works both ways), and your life might end up pretty bad, but more likely in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with.
  - nmrm 13y ago
    > Anarchocapitalism... in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with. This sounds, if anything, less realistic than the OP's proposal. It's also completely vacuous... which ones are obvious? The process of finding a sufficiently acceptable set is called politics.

itbeho 13y ago

Those in "leadership" roles will eventually enrich themselves and their cronies and you're back to having income inequality, but worse than before, since any chance at upward mobility has been removed.

n0rm 13y ago

It's a society that shares everything. Logical mode of thinking suggests that leadership should also be shared. A recent example of this is; San Francisco (I think) municipality opening up it databases to the citizens so that people can figure out a way to get involved in how their living space is governed.

aluhut 13y ago

> Who will lead us? Googles AI of course.