I think Open is about synergy. I do something for free, you do too, and the synergy of the multiple systems becomes a positive sum game, and I can do a lot more via the collaboration.
Interesting view that corporations are a form of gvt. Agreed! Disney in florida is a quasi-county, with members on the city-county-state governmental organizations. I wish folks could see the synergy thing. If we don't provide for medical care for those who cannot afford it, we'll end up paying for the far more expensive emergency-room they'll eventually use. Also, if they can't afford flu shots and don't get free ones, they will increase the probability of *my* getting the flu. We're all the same pile of warm puppies. -- Owen On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:49 AM, glen <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://halfanhour.blogspot.**com/2013/09/two-comments-on-**open.html<http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2013/09/two-comments-on-open.html> > > "To me, open isn't about the money (and it's precisely when it *does* > become about the money that it becomes converted and corrupted). Open is > about creating and sharing. Open isn't about elite universities and 'the > best professors in the world'. It's about everybody being able to be a > learner, and a teacher, and a member of the community." > > I found that comment interesting. I hadn't given much thought to the fact > that many of these courses are being subsidized by the 1% (ultimately the > alumni and students who can afford tuition at the decidedly not open > universities Harvard, Stanford, and MIT, as well as mega-corporations). It > goes back to our conversation on the motivations companies like Intel and > Oracle might have for supporting open source. > > I recently found myself arguing with someone who claims to be "anti-state" > about the definition of government. It seems patently obvious to me that a > corporation is a form of government (which is part of why > anarcho-capitalism is a ridiculous concept). I think of them (the well > engineered ones, anyway) as tools to achieve objectives that cannot be > achieved by the more inertial, stumbling, things we normally call > "government". The fundamental difference, it seems to me, is that most of > what we call government is tied to geography, even if indirectly. It would > be odd, for example, if your "county seat" just up and moved every few > years. But I don't see why that would be an entirely bad thing. Most of > the moves should be within the geographic bounds of the county. But > perhaps it would be useful for some rural county to move it's seat to the > state capital, or even to another state, sporadically. > > Interventions like that might make government a little more > objective-oriented in the same way that corporations are often made more > statist by being geographically bound. > > -- > =><= glen e. p. ropella > I took a check on all the meters in my room > > ==============================**============================== > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/**listinfo/friam_redfish.com<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
