Some comments that might be intrusive (in which case, I apologize and please ignore) or contributory as context to the "ownership" discussion.
Two-years ago I presented a paper, "Patterns of Humanity," at a social change conference. Part of the paper dealt with "economics," — in. quotation marks because not all of economics, but practical efforts to set up alternative mechanisms for economic exchange. All systems of exchange can be derived from three human/cultural patterns of reciprocity: general, balanced, and negative. Simplified: General is akin to parent-child, value is given with little regard for "repayment" except in very general and delayed terms (kids take care of their parents in old age); Balanced is implied by the name, exchange occurs but is balanced among all members of the group - with remarkably precise awareness of any imbalances, (we all know which of us missed their turn to buy a round of drinks when we are out partying); Negative is both sides trying to maximize benefit at the expense of the other party. The key factor in viability of each type is social distance; general within family, balanced among small groups, and negative the only one that scales and includes strangers. Markets can be based on balanced reciprocity, but only at relative small scale, e.g. the village or a community like the Amish. Almost all markets with which we are familiar and within which we participate are grounded in negative reciprocity. Because these are focused on asymmetric outcomes; they are enhanced by asymmetry with regard the factors of the mechanism of exchange. Two of the most common are asymmetry with regards information and asymmetry with regards power. A concept of "ownership" is but a tool for establishing or enhancing an asymmetry of power. Like Markets, a "Commons" can be grounded in balanced or negative reciprocity. The possibility of a "balanced" Commons is constrained, by social distance. The only way to ensure the minimal social distance necessary for a balanced Commons is some kind of overriding Culture. So it works just fine in groups with a strong defining culture like the Amish, Mennonites, and pre-statehood Mormon communities. Commons derived from negative reciprocity are doomed to "failure." davew On Thu, Nov 21, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Nick writes: > > < Dogs seem to have (or enact) a concept of ownership. > > > Just have to bite on this one: My cattle dog seems to think of her > collar as jewelry. If I take it off she chases after me and tries to > get it back. > > < This scheme is known as altruistic enforcement because from a > Darwinian modeling point of view, it's hard to see why the dominant > individuals -- the soldiers, if you will -- don't pool their resources > and take down the Don. > > > Each would have to believe the new boss would be better than the old > boss, that it wouldn't be them, and that someone will be the boss. > They've invested in an organization that has a pecking order, and so it > would be dangerous to suddenly abandon it in favor of a looser cabal: > Everyone beneath each of them might do the same. > > Marcus > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
