And we are used to an unbridgeable divide between these rights of absolute ownership and temporary use: Freehold and Leasehold; the debate concerning "fair use" of proprietary IP and so on.
In both the case of land and IP I am pointing out that by using simple new legal forms other than private Companies for the purpose of "packaging" Property rights it is possible to come up with new partnership-based policy options that are capable of completely changing the game.
ie put IP into a "trust" (the IP Foundation?)with the trustee/custodian as a member of a partnership with: (a) the IP creator; (b) the IP user; (c) a Manager/Developer/Operator.
The revenues - if there are any (and many IP creators choose not to charge) - are simply shared proportionally between the IP creator and the Manager/ Operator (if any).
It's not difficult. But it IS new. Neither Proprietary nor "Open", but both.
A partnership model which is "closed" in that only Members may use IP but "Open" in that anyone who consents to the terms of the partnership agreement may join. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
So...
Property in it's common meaning is "What I own and you do not, unless you own it with me."
(Or some part of it, which can be decided in law.)
But we make the association: Property = those "things"
The house (which will one day crumble and be buried--or destroyed in some way--as they always have been and always will be)...is...there! There it is! That's property!
Yes, yes. It is exclusive ownership over time.
Why would I want to own this....thing? (Picks up ming vase and stares at it.)
Because it has value.
Sez who?
Sez the guy who puts his flowers in it.
But (edit edit!) we can't just get ever more stuff. Where would we keep it? How are we going to move it around?
We need other people--to look after it, to polish it, move it around.
And if we don't want it any more ("One day I just thought, 'Ming vase--flowers, it's not working'"), we can leave it by the roadside where it, too, will crumble, be covered in dust or be destroyed.
Or! We could pass it onto someone else, for some o' that lovely liquid money that gets you different stuff, all kinds of different stuff.
Now: some stuff is not for sale.
What about if someone (;) bought Mt. Everest and refused to give anyone else the "right to roam"?
Well, this person would, if they had the power to back up their claim, "own" that land...until they died, lost the power, or changed their mind in some way.
So...(it wasn't any better the first time):
What you "own" must have value, if you wish to
a) benefit from it yourself (value to you)
and/or
b) are willing to allow another person to benefit from it (value to someone else)
...I had it: an LLP involving eco-builders, land owners, residents, all the way to the energy company who would join as a member and would agree to put up a wind turbine and there would be an agreement, as part of the LLP about the financing.
....but you need initial value to take part. And I had a thought: seven billion people, most active through the day. Is all that activity grounded in value? Coz I had an image of a bubble of activity collapsing...and it needs to collapse onto something valuable.
So Property = What's mine (or ours.) Ownership = I have (incl. legal; esp. legal in some environments) the power to do what I want with my property Value = the benefit adhering to the property for the owner and/or anyone else Money = liquidity. The ability to obtain valuable property.
Where property can mean "A beatiful view"; "peace and quiet"; "whisky sour"; "the northern lights"...
...yes, because they are "yours"!
...ah yes, and the point being that a tree is not "yours"; it is itself, as are the stones in a brick dwelling themselves.
Life just "is" (as they say); as humans we see value as we live...here there and everywhere.
But if we can't access this value (I can see the food, but I can't eat it)...we don't have the initial value necessary to...join an LLP.
The LLP presupposes that all parties agree where the initial value(s) lie(s). Just as in your tale well told of the Jersey solicitors. They knew where the value lay.
Hey, I'm a yacking!
The word "wrapper" makes me think of sweets, and my experience is that all you find inside is a piece of not particulary interesting chocolate. Shell sound hard, and reminds me of computer "shell" programmes (?)...
...the LLP is an opportunity to share your valuable property with others in such a way that you don't necessarily need outside agents as intermediaries, and yet your agreements are "in law". Yes, someone can default--to the value of the assets they have (legally) brought to the LLP.
Hold on up a sec thar!
"the value of the assets"
....I mean, they can lose all of the valuable things they offer to the LLP if they fuck it over, and no more.
But as I see it right now, you need the LLP as and when you have financial agreements...because the asset most people know how to value is "money"--coz it's a changeling and we can see it in action. Ten grand is...measurable (A trip round the world; a chunk of the mortgage; lossa lossa beers [I knew a guy many years ago who got a £6,000 inheritance; I believe he spent all of it on, yes, drink and drugs, and clubs and buying everyone loads of drink and drugs])
So the hard part is how to perceive the value of objects that can't easily be seen in terms of "money". But surely they can--"value" can be measured by price. If you were to sell it, how much would you get for it? But ah, ah. Hmmm.
Your models are business/economic models; sober judgements. Ya know, I'm hoping the enterprises you do go well. But I see a wider application--it's the legal aspect. I don't know much (about economy)...the law. But I see that we all need protection from it and by it. Ergo, Holmes, they should be cheap (£20); easy to set up, with no I-need-a-lawyer smallprint (is that possible when setting up a legal document? Seems to be with wills, apart from the witnessing and sealing...whatever goes on)
And the advantages for individuals in building a legal element into their associations.
What's to lose if you don't? Where's the loss? (Clear in the case of the Jersey solicitors--were they solicitors?)
What are my/our tangible benefits? What protections am I afforded above and beyond simple "trust" relationships? ("Sure I lent him a few hundred. I had it spare and he's good for it.")
But no, I want to keep away from money. That's too narrow. Most people (looking around globally) don't have enough.
But something of value...do all humans have something of value they can place with an LLP? What benefits acrue--beyond not having to pay some tax and not having to stump up any payments to intermediaries where and when they are not needed? Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
But something of value...do all humans have something of value they can place with an LLP?
Indeed they do. They have their ideas and their writing, music, painting and so on: which is what this thread is about.
They also have the use over time of their brain, brawn and accumulated skills and experience.
I would advocate a new approach to the financing of education.
Every student should be able to enter into a mini-partnership with the State - an "Enterprise Agreement" I call it.
Provided the student is suitably qualified for it (ie through ok school exams) the State "invests" as "Capital Partner" in (say) my qualification as a Doctor.
It's not a loan, so that I don't HAVE to pay it back, but in return for the use of the "Investment" I have (say) 2% of my gross salary deducted and this goes into the education pot.
If I like, I can pay the State back, (either as an interest-free loan, or maybe at an agreed multiple of my earnings) and so if I've paid off half, then the "Capital Rental" comes down to 1% of my revenue.
So the more that Society has invested in you, the more you give back. But it's not a debt, hanging around your neck like an albatross: you only need pay if you are earning.
And maybe if you do a few years overseas on VSO - probably getting twice as much experience as you would get in the UK - the government credits your account as though you were earning double....
Lots of new policy options.
In fact I believe that there is NO area of policy which cannot be improved upon using an "Open Corporate" as a policy tool.
The LLP is the first example of an "Open Corporate", but with the addition of a protective coating (or semi-permeable membrane!) - ie "limitation of liability" - a privilege for which LLP members (like shareholders in a Ltd company) don't actually pay anything.
Reinvent marriage, divorce, wills and family law?
Welcome to the Family Corporate. I know someone who formed a husband and wife LLP the day after he heard me talk about the one I'm doing. (except mine will have the kids in it as well)
Reinvent Pensions?
Signor Tonti had the right idea - we simply reinvent Tontines in a big way using an "Open Corporate" linking together everyone born in the same year inot Cohort "Pools" of pension Investment Capital.
Reinvent taxes?
1/ Everyone pays x% of their earned income into a "Pool" and its redistributed equally. ie those earning less than average receive a net transfer.
2/ Everyone pays x% of the Value of the Commons to which they have exclusive rights into another Pool, and that is redistributed equally, too.
And so on.
I'm really getting into the rg stream of consciousness style - you should patent it! "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
I definitely prefer semi-permeable membrane (!)
It has a science edge--for those who don't know what it means, it'll sound like cells and biology (I don't think that'll put people off, though I may be wrong.)
For those who do know, there's the click: Ah! So I am protected from what's coming in but not blocked in what I put out.
If that's the idea.
I like your education idea, but (not a nasty but) your larger ideas involve govt. spending, and I reckon that'll only happen when regions have demonstrated functionality, and that'll only happen when municipalities demonstrate functionality...and that all sounds like a big pile of bureaucrats acting as fingernails down a board...screeee breaking. Though you seem to be in contact with more...hmmm...enlightened local authorities, so good luck with that and I look forward to hearing the outcome(s).
I'm not so sure about this:
They have their ideas and their writing, music, painting and so on: which is what this thread is about.
Can we deal with seven billion songs, books, and paintings? Is it feasible to make an economy around that sort of activity?
Also: I'm thinking of the poor git who's grown up in an orphanage near a slum not far from a war zone; not the brightest eyed but the one who never really "got it", doesn't have much brawn, and has only really accumulated negative experiences...and no pratical skills (no teachers.)
...so they could write a novel! And yes, maybe we do need seven billion stories...'twould be better than bombs.
But...yes. Semi-permeable membrane. In your examples there is always a "rich investor" of some kind who sees the enlightened path. In education: the state. With taxes: the state (via laws); the Jersey businessmen--all rich (enough.)
I think Miguel said (maybe someone else too? HiD?) that it assumes benevolence on the part of the investor, who could make alternative investments.
I'm wondering: what about a group of people, ya know, people who don't have access to a prinicpal (=rich) investor. Something like, say, a bunch of people who have a website, where you have input value, the value of brains learning over time, tech. skills, there's writing, music, photography (no doubt there are some painters too.)
But no huge wodge of investment. So, this website, well, we're thinking about the future, crazy solutions alien to current practice. So let's call this website. I know. ET!
So, let's take "ET". What benefits would acrue to the various members if they agreed to associate within the semi-permeable membrane?
One benefit: limited liability. But as the value being cannot be expressed in liquid money--there is no "key investor", only equals, sorta like the solicitors but without the suits, the legal practices, and the immediate vision of financial gain through tax breaks... So, what is the liability an ET member might face outside the LLP, and how is it limited by us being within the semi-permeable membrane? Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
To me an LLP is just a simple (and optimal, since it is entirely "open") legal wrapper for "pooling" risk and reward, but has the attraction that it can operate across borders better than anything else - a "Legal XML".
"Law is Code" / Semantic Web, yada yada.
An example of crossborder operation is a Microfinance Initiative I am working on (saw a Norwegian junior minister about it last week: it's all ready part-funded by Norway) where we are setting up "Trustee"/ Custodian entities in each jurisdiction, which will be members of a "Development Network" LLP (or - more comprehensibly to Joe Public) an "Ethical Equity/Stock Exchange".
The other members of this LLP are a "Club" of Investors; the "Club" of Users of Investment; and the "Operating Member" consortium.
No reason why ET LLP couldn't use a variation of what is IMHO an optimal generic structure.
ET "Founder"/ Trustee Member ET User Club ET Financier Club ET Service Provider Club
With costs shared as may be agreed, a suitable "core" governance probably convening online etc etc I'm sure it's all been covered before, but I've forgotten what was said! "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
I might have known. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
