Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Me versus Us versus Them

by rg Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 10:38:21 AM EST

From kcurie:

Still probably the worst is the individulaistic narrative of "us" being a "single" perso, this is also very dangerous and without any alternative out there. This can lead the way to a big unefficient cars again and to an eventually semi-suburban (suburban a la european style) type of neighboorhood (I know guadalajara in Spain for exmple), where the notion of being ONE (as in Republican ex-urbia) will be extremelly powerful given the symbolic structure of the space distribution.

I'd like to follow this up, as I see it as a key issue which affects me, maybe you too: how our individuality--as a concept and a prize--runs against the needs of the collective....


...or not, as the case may be.  See, I have a theory (oh many, many!) that low-level alienation is the price a society pays for not going to war with itself or its neighbours.  It is a lack of cohesion between individuals--a lack of a sense of shared identity--that means rallying cries of the "Us vs. Them!" kind fail to rouse the spirits of and mobilise the actions of enough people...to go to war.  Against our neighbours.  (Wars against far away enemies who are seen to be powerless don't count here.)

No "For your country!" = no social urge to war...

But...also no group identity for postive change.  We are all so different...and we don't like leaders telling us what to do...and when they do, we disagree about who they are, what they mean, and what we should do about it...we are isolated into small groups...but there is the key...

Small Groups

Small groups are not a single person; small groups can connect with other small groups...

ElcoB:

Well, the initiative in Flanders started some years ago with people and organisations linked to Oxfam(fair trade), ecological movement and third world actions.
I searched around but I couln't find simular initiatives in other country's.
In Flanders there is a central organisation who promotes the idea with succes: they have a website only in Flemish: VOEDSELTEAMS.Weet wat je eet. (Foodteams, know what you eat.)

DoDo:

How many households are supplied currently by this admirable network?

ElcoB:

Hard to get figures, since this is about local initiatives.
But at some point there where 150 known 'foodteams' with around 10 households each. Sure this is far from a mass-movement but it demonstrates the possibility of sustainable local (bio/organic)farming and 'alternative' distribution.

(Apologies for quoting anyone who'd rather not be quoted; let me know and I'll remove your quote.)

So...my point being that maybe the key difference now (oh, a key difference, a difference...something something connecting to kcurie's point...)...yes, maybe there is a difference between those who ascribe to at least one group, however small (just a group of friends will do, or even--question mark?--the family as it extends beyond nuclear), and those who ascribe to no group, who are fundamentally "Us" = "me"

...?

Ramble, ramble.  Oh!  Oh!  Pictures are necessary.

And I wonder, then, if the question is how do small groups (tribes?) relate to Ze State, a large abstraction across the planet's surface and divided into 177 (and counting) fractious slices...

More pictures...

More monkeys...

Yes...the relationship between groups and the state...when "them" becomes "us"...and "we" become "them"...rather than "him" or "her"...?

Migeru:

It may be always illegal, but not necessarily wrong, unless your position is that ethics must follow law.

Jerome:

You don't decree trust, you earn it.

So maybe the states we live in have broken trust with us...they have stopped earning it...and the atomised individual is the easiest solution for all concerned...but now that atomisation, as is the way of atoms (? no?) find others, join together, and...as melo put it...

who can resist the new alloy?

He also wrote:

i think we should point harf to the longterm advantages of seeing ourselves first as global citizens, and then working back, towards atomisation of individual identity.

So...global citizens...individuals...small groups...There is a size of group that can bring about change...maybe that size reduces to "one" and builds from there?  Yack yack...

It gets dark early here these days...Here's a sunset...

Display:
(with apologies to the Leningrad Cowboys)

rg, what I think you are attempting here is an entirely new art form that merges Burroughsian extremes of random deconstruction, a dash of Kurt Schwitterianism collage, the CopyPaste basis of future society (The Cloners are already at work on CopyPasting humans), and the self-reflective nature of contemporary lexographic art which examines the definitions of all art that has gone before in a kinda sorta appendicial, footnotey kinda way.

But better still, recycling soundbites from ET conversations and performing any of the above operations on them, will produce endless new diaries from what is essentially a fossil fuel source.

And then we get into sustainability: while we have not yet reached Peak ET yet, and further drilling may replenish the supply of diaries, we should be careful to recycle soundbites in a sustainable manner.

Your current strip-mining of commentary, rg, requires rethinking. Firstly environmental hazards must be indentified, it must be lawful, and the landscape should be returned to its original habitat when the strip-mine is closed.

and weighed against would be the employment it provides.

;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 11:38:05 AM EST
Well...okay.  How about this?

You see, I forgot that the reason I wanted to post kcurie's comment was to juxtapose it against this from redstar:

Give folks economic equality, they stop being "other".

I wanted to comment on the original thread about how the "other" is linked to the five senses...how "other" means "not me" or "not us"...hence the connection to kcurie's point.  I wanted to say:

When the "other" stops being a group and becomes an individual like us (due to economic reasons, as per redstars comment, then "other" ceases to be group and becomes a series of individuals...and this is good, no?  But then there must be the re-attach...to different groups?

So now I've said it, recycling a thought--thought while cycling, no less!  And the reason I quote others is because they express things more eloquently than povero moi...it would seem tortuous not to go to the source...which, being many, and being rich in content and value etc...I am thus re-distributing in a Robin Hood-like manner...I'm not sure how to fit in a progressive tax scale, but i poveri meritano solo un prezzo: "Gratis!", e i ricchi solo un'altro: "Tanto piu' di adesso!"...and my italian...ouch!

So, er, I think that's squared things and now we have two comments...if we are a "we"...

"Yes, one of the many We's, who separated years before from the Them's and are now in danger of extinction at the souless extention of the I's...."

No!  Madness!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:09:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For me the future is about groups, not individuals. We should be learning about how to function in groups of collaborating 'trustees', and think less of ourselves. (And one person can belong to many groups

It is impossible today to be a 'Renaissance man' IMO - there's just too much going on for one individual to track it all. So I have to trust that your skills and know-how expand mine and vice-versa, and we then expand out to a group with complimentary skills that has enough know-how and experience to solve local problems.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:20:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
'Local' meaning 'of relevance to the group', not geographical necessarily

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:22:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One of the problems of political organisation/participation that I struggle with is that not all of a person's multiple constituencies/allegiances/communities are geographically based, but we mostly only recognise geographic political entities.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:26:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree this is a very important problem that questions the very nature of allegiance. The world has not become flat as Friedman would have it, it is being remapped without the political boundaries and geographical features.

The new map is noospherical and only people are visible in it.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:32:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it questions the nature of political representation.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 01:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
are not allegiance and representation two sides of the same coin?

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 01:04:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see how. You can have one without the other.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 01:54:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"we" being...?

(Plus...part of "my" aim...here...(can you believe it?!) is to promote the cause of renewable energy...with regard to transport...coz there are so many people to meet in Europe...and beyond!  And high speed, renewable-power driven transport devices...non-polluting...and those who connect around that idea...(is it an idea?)...are connecting to an idea...that will affect their locality, their movement...so it links to trams (DoDo!), bicycles, windfarms, the love of nature, political decisions...etc...)

Not sure how that ties in exactly, but, say, the Greens are not geographically based...I don't think...(not trying to ding a party political bell here; just seeking politicians who agree with my ramble above...policies not politics...that was rdf, wasn't it?  I always liked that quote.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"we" being... an imperonal subject that should be made passive: "only geographical political entities are recognised".

Greens are not geographically based, and yet they can only seek political representation on a geographic basis - think global, act local?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:59:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I was taught that using the passive voice avoided the subject...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 05:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Too many words and boring reading also.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins
by EricC on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 06:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Did you ever give your dog a good name?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 06:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For you Eric, hope you like it.



Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 07:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"we only recognise geographical political entities" - 6 words and "who is 'we'?"
"only geographical political entities are recognised" - 6 words and no ambiguity

Both are equally boring.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 02:53:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
not all of a person's multiple constituencies/allegiances/communities are geographically based, but we mostly only recognise geographic political entities.

20 words and not at all boring.  But in context, I hope you can see that

a)  Who is "we"? in the above sentence  is a valid qusetion and

b) turning it impersonal loses focus, context, and I think validity...coz..."Who is we?" means a group you are part of (e.g. not related to the eastern chinese political system...)

European political types?  European entities?  I thought you meant regionally or locally representative parties (e.g. the Conservative party represents the english...) hence my Green comment... but I think you might mean something else, which I was trying to get you to expand on with my question about "we" (which is sorta parta the topic of the diary.)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 04:24:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Instead of "who is we?" you could ask "recognised by whom?". I unintentionally used "we" because I didn't want to focus it narrowly. I meant all political authority is geographically based, whether it is local, regional, national or international.

Think of politics as collective decision-making. Now, in which scopes can you be part of this collective decision-making? Your city, your region, your country, your continent.

Anything that commands allegiance but is not geographically based is called an "interest group" and considered somehow suspect because it has no allegiance to the geographical entity. Even groups whose primary allegiance has wider geographical scope are sometimes considered suspect in the context of a smaller geographical unit [e.g., national parties in a region with a strong nationalist streak]

I am deliberately using the passive so I don't have to get into a discussion of "who bases", "who calls", "who considers"? But you can of course flag those and ask "by whom?" and then we can have that other discussion.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 04:52:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I unintentionally used "we" because I didn't want to focus it narrowly.

I mean, I unintentionally used "we" but should have used the passive to begin with because I didn't want to focus it on anyone in particular.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 04:59:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you give an example of legislation which could be enacted non-geographically?  Or some kind of political event or activity with effects in the world that don't have geographical limits?  An interest group might be PETA, but when they lobby it is to stop fur trading in Alaska, Russia, China, or even The Planet.  You can be part of PETA and live anywhere; PETAs aim is to influence behaviour/activity somewhere specific.  I think I'm misunderstanding you, but if the above is correct, the collective who makes a decision can be disparate geographically, but the decision will have an effect somewhere...maybe at the locations of all involved in the decision (to the level of "globally"), but there will still be that....well...if I haven't asked a proper question yet more typing ain't gonna help.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 06:16:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, you're right, all decisions are ultimately implemented locally. The problem is to have a system of local government that allows non-local concerns to be represented. The Westminster parliament doesn't allow this. Even proportional representation in multi-seat constituencies doesn't allow it. Now, since single-district proportional representation doesn't recognise local concerns, I think an additional member system is optimal.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 06:37:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is one person's non-local concern another person's local concern?  And should it therefore be dealt with by the relevant local govt.?  (I'm thinking of Jerome's non-interventionist comment in a recent diary of his ("Outsiders have no right to..." etc.)

For concerns that cover more than one local govt. area, you can have representatives for each area....the UK system, but without first past the post (a meeting of regional mayors kinda thing?  Very corruptible, I suppose, but maybe all systems are...but that's a whole other topic.)

Could you give an example of a non-local concern, so's I can run it through the processes you mention?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 07:09:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But the thing is, having representatives from each local area doesn't allow a non-local concern to be represented unless there are enough people in one local district who care enough about the issue to elect a local candidate on that basis.

There are any number of national policy issues that concern people but are unable to get a candidate elected in a local constituency. The more uniform the geographical distribution of concerned people, the less represented it will be. 5% of the population can elect 10% of the seats in the Westminster parliament if they are about 50% of the population in a small region, or no seats if they are uniformly distributed. I once saw a US political group's website whose members pledged to move to some small US state within 10 years so they could elect a Congressman, or something like that. Another example is the Spanish parliament: United Left - 5% nationally, 5 seats (from Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia which elect more than 20 seats in a single constituency); CiU (Catalan centre-right nationalists) - 3% nationally, concentrated in 4 provinces, 10 seats; ERC (Republican Left of Catalonia) - 2.5% in 4 provinces, 6 seats.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 07:20:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another example: you only have a green MEP because the UK elects its MEPs by proportional representation in 10-seat constituencies.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 07:32:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree about proportional representation, though I think the number of people agreeing to do "Thing X" (that I disagree with) will be a majority to our small minority ("we" in this case being people who think like me on the relevant issue)...  I suppose my proof would be the policies enacted by govts. elected via a PR system.  But that's by the by.  My thought is that if, say 10% of the population feel strongly about an issue that doesn't affect them locally, should they have a political system that allows their views to carry weight in the locality where the issue has its effects?  A practical example might be a group strongly opposed to windfarms/nuclear power who would like to be represented in discussions about the siting of a specific windfarm/reactor.  When the decision affects where I live (and we all have to live somewhere), do I want committed folks from elsewhere having a say?  What about if I live in an area very unrepresentative, politically, of the wider region/nation/etc. where these other people live?  Again, if you could give me a couple of examples of non-local issues--so I can see what kind of things you're thinking about, I think I'd find it easier to run them through the various systems...  I'd like to learn more about PR, and practical examples would (I think) help me see the systems merits and demerits.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 07:43:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How about an issue that affects everyone? Like the NHS? Or the national energy or transportation policy? Or foreign policy? You're assuming that the "nonlocal concern" has a concentrated local realisation and that you can stir up some NIMBY among people who don't share your concern.

Think about parties like Graue Panther, or the PvvD, or Piratpartiet. They are single-issue and, as such, small, but the constituencies they represent are not concentrated geographically.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 07:57:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah!  Now I begin to understand (sound of creaking).  

Let's see if I have this right.

You'd like to see more single issue parties?  People could join various single issue parties rather than joining one overarching party.  Is that what you mean?

If so, how would they deal with the issues you mentioned (Health, Energy, Transport, Foreign)?


Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 08:42:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I'd like a system where both local and non-local concerns can be represented by allowing both concentrated and diffuse constituencies to elect candidates. Single-issue parties are just for illustrative purposes, note I have listed the Spanish United Left, German Graue Panther, any Green Party, Dutch PvvD and Swedish Piratpartiet as examples of diffuse constituencies. Note that the LibDems, while polling 3-4 times more than Spain's IU, find themselves in the same position (small relative to, say, SNP or Plaid Cymru) because they are a (relatively) small National party and the UK system has single-seat constituencies instead or Spain's multi-seat ones.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 08:51:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For me the future is about groups, not individuals. We should be learning about how to function in groups of collaborating 'trustees', and think less of ourselves. (And one person can belong to many groups

That is why I wax lyrical about the concept of the "Open Corporate": a consensual legal "wrapper" or protocol we may opt into which defines the (JOINT) extent of our mutual rights and obligations but without the individual (SEVERAL) obligation of partnership.

It is an entirely new synthesis of individual and collective, and opens up the possibility of a networked "State" in which we participate through a myriad "self-organising" enterprises (an enterprise being an economic entity involving two or more individuals).

BTW Sven,how did your presentation to the captains of industry go?

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:34:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I still don't get it!

We have a protocol--a sort of list of instructions or...can I call it an agreement?

So...an agreement between individuals which defines exactly the mutual rights and obligations they share with one another...

is that right?  So, eg, we could have an agreement that I have the right to 50% of whatever you make a week, and the duty to give you 50% of whatever I make?  Or we could agree that I will fund your project to the tune of, say £100,000, and you will then pay me £10,000 a year for the next twelve years--unless you are worth less than £10,000...etc...  Any set of rights and responsibilities we agree on, right?

So...we have an agreement on our mutual rights and responsibilities to each other, as we decide (that don't break the laws of the country in which the legal entity is sited, I presume)...

but we are not....what?  Why is individual SEVERAL?  I know it's a technical term...Chris, I really appreciate your help...the obligation of partnership...  Once we agree our rights and responsibilities, we are obliged...to what we have agreed to be responsible for?  I know it's not like that...am I 2/3 of the way there yet?  (Persistence!  I will set up my LLP, by golly gosh!, and it will be thanks to you, but not before I understand the damn thing, sirrah!



Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:50:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Essentially we are talking about an agreement in writing - and more often than not among people who know and trust each other it can often be an unwritten "understanding".

But the key is that "Open" Corporate LLP's permit the sharing of risk and reward in ways that make it more "profitable" to cooperate than to compete; to share information rather than to hold it to our chest; and so on.

It is an inherently cooperative and participative way of linking individuals together with a common purpose or aim.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 01:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I get the idea...but I don't get the practice...

(Praxis?)

The individuals make an agreement...somehow this stands in law in some relationship beyond what has currently been seen...this is your idea, I think.  So...we make an agreement, you and I, and let us add fifty others...I don't get the way we are not bound together in law (I may be getting all the terms terribly muddled)...but we are bound...in some way...there's a mystery here...I'm trying to see it as clearly as...a sunset...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 05:59:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The "Open" Corporate is a Concept  but application in practice is through the law.

In the UK the Open Corporate praxis is through the LLP (which was created by a 2000 Statute ie the UK Law) - which is an "Open" Corporate with the added bonus - or protective "semi-permeable membrane" - of limitation of liability.  The UK LLP form has also been adopted now in Dubai and Qatar. The original Jersey LLP was subtly different. and is not in fact a Corporate entity.

In the US it is possible to utilise the LLC (which is again not technically a corporate entity, but let's not go there) in a similar way to approximate an "Open" Corporate, by imaginative use of the LLC legal agreement, and the extension of membership to any stakeholder willing to sign up.

Even though it is founded in a particular jurisdiction, it is possible (I have done it) to extend LLP's to entities overseas and thereby to introduce "investment" - whether commercial, social or philanthropic depends on the members and the project.

So Members ARE bound together in law by the overall "wrapper" of an LLP, within which there may be many subsidiary legal agreements, either formal (like a company) or informal (like a club)or a lawyer's benefit (aka a "Trust").

eg it is possible to have an LLP which has as one member a "Trust", another a Company, and the third a "Club" or "unincorporated association".

It's a bit like XML.

Law is code.

And instead of linking together disparate hardware and software, an LLP protocol may link together disparate legal entities/protocols and jurisdictions.

Dunno if that helps any....

 

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 06:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm right on that edge, Chris, and thankin' ye mightily...I will need to revist your comment with a head full of strangeness...and I'm sure my (energy saving) lightbulb will illuminate....

But...just to keep you giving me this wunnerful information...

The idea is that there is no JOINT responsibility...  The agreements are between individuals...there is no JOINT loss...?  Yet the law allows...certain joint activities that historically would have entailed joint loss?

I know nothing of your musical tastes...so...here's...Julian Bream playing Villa Lobos...turn it up to appreciate...the passion...



Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 07:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's all about sharing risk and reward. So losses are shared to the extent that you can lose as much as you put in to an LLP or LLC.

But of course you are, as with a Joint Stock Limited Liabilty Corporation, protected by "free" limitation of liability.

I actually believe that the privilege of Limited Liability should come with a cost, and I would apply some sort of levy in respect of it, based upon turnover probably, to be paid into a compensation fund maybe.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 01:48:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
......ker....gah!  Mmmm....ahhh.  Right...so, no, hold on.....hmmmm....

I think I now understand that this is to do with legality and is tied in some way to taxes...

So...limited liability means I don't have to pay out from my personal savings if things don't work out?  The only money is that in the pot...placed there according to the protocol(s) (agreements) of the LLP--which are decided by and are between individuals (though an "indidivual" can be a group of people...etc...)

Now...taxes.  Is this a key part of the deal?  You mentioned (oh, oh, I'm rambling...just trying to get my thoughts down) the trillions in housing stock, held by the elderly and due to be passed to their children, with a hefty chunk taken by the tax man, as the assets have to be liquidated (? turned into money)...or maybe they don't and a hypothetical value is ascribed...but an LLP would avoid all of this?

Coz you had a point about the LLP--as a philosophical concept, so as an abbreviation for an idea I'm trying to grip...oh softly softly, slip and slide etc..--you had a point about it changing the relationship between the govt. and the governed, so that must mean laws and taxes, and I have a sense...well...am I getting any closer?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 07:15:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Limited Liability" is essentially a Guarantee that you cannot lose more than you invest (and it need not be "money" but can be "money's worth") in an enterprise constituted as an entity with Limited Liability.

But its a Guarantee with no cost, a lot like an option which you have paid no premium for.

I'm not saying Limitation of Liability is wrong, rather the reverse: but it should be paid for by those who benefit from it.

Now for the more difficult part of your post.

The "Open" Corporate (eg LLP, LLC) allows us to "wrap" or encapsulate the rights of use and the "usufruct" of productive assets in a new way.

Currently, if we wish to "invest" in land (either by making it more fruitful) or in buildings (to give a property rental value) we do so through using credit created by credit institutions (ie Banks and building societies).

This "deficit-based" finance is then secured - ie "asset-backed" by a legal claim (a mortgage) over the land and property.

The fact is that bank-created credit is almost entirely worthless (ie based upon fresh air) and is the direct cause of the asset-price inflation which continues to transfer "wealth" (ie money's worth such aas land and property) from the many to the few.

I point out that the LLP allows a new alternative.

ie direct investment in the "Pool" of future rental value to which the investment gave rise.

Something we accept as a "Given" is private "ownership" of land. Whereas I believe that land is a Commons and that those who have exclusive private use of it (with which I agree) should compensate those they exclude.

I call this a "Commons Rental" - Henry George called it a "Single Tax" because he believed that if it were applied, no other tax would be necessary.....

The "Land Partnership" I refer to actually may give rise both to simple and fair forms of Equity Release and to the potential for raising "tax" in an equitable way- extensible to other "Commons", particularly the "Creative Commons" of Knowledge.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 04:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Chris!  You are a star, no doubt, shining and I keep staring...t'is all good (as a friend of mine sometimes says)...lovelinesses.

I'm soon going to read the wikipedia article on Henry George.  You mentioned other historic characters as well...I know I'm always asking a lot...I hope I offer as well as ask...you've got a history to this idea...could you post up the names?  On the one hand, you propose a global revolution, on t'other, you put the revolution in our hands...  I keep feeling a mystic edge, which usually means I sort of understand and don't understand at the same time.  Let me say:

I--and others, as you know, of course!--are interested in your proposal(s)...but we haven't quite bent our minds to your wind...not quite...so keep blowing clear...I think I have to read the history, and I'm happy and willing to...the context, perhaps, is what I'm asking for...maybe, well no, definitely me and two short planks have a similar existence.  We are born, we serve a purpose beyond our ken...yack yack!  

I hope I can be (one of the many) foil(s) to your great idea...there was at least one other name you mentioned...I know I could look it up, but you're happy...I hope!...to remind...yes...

I'll always thank you for your replies, Chris, and here's another one...a thank you...and a reply to your reply...I'm hungry to learn...but simple and prefering always of practical examples...which you provide (a case of beer to you and yours, Chris!  Payable as soon as I have the cash, and as a down payment certainly a beer on the table when we meet!  A pint...if you enjoy a pint...ach!  I cannae express...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 07:28:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your views have actually influenced me a lot recently, especially in opening my eyes to the fact that there are now practical structures (like LLPs) that can do the job of extending the new networking organizational processes in the virtual world into the business world, if not even to our whole social organization.

My seminar was a great success, though one woman marched out (it later transpired that, although she had vocally objected to something in the performance, she was actually in a rush to get to another do).

I have been meaning to do a diary about it, but it takes a lot of work to put all the animated visuals into diary form.

Basically my presentation was about SOS's and how these concepts would affect business over the next few years, mainly by empowering individuals at all levels of organzations to become the 'assets' (and the power that brings) that they really are in knowledge and service companies. (Remember I am talking to high-level institutional investment managers who are the guests of one of Scandinavia's largest banks)

I had two trained actors play the parts of waiters (agreed with the restaurant) for the 4 course lunch. They served the aperitifs, then disappeared so the professionals could serve the main course with 100 buck wines, returning to hand out the puddings - so no-one expected anything was out of the odinary.

Then I start my seminar as they are still serving. About the part where I get to the empowering of individuals, the actor/waiters start to stop and listen, subtly at first, but growing bolder as 'empowered people'. I finish after about 35 minutes, by which time the waiters are Bolshie and bring out the coffee and avecs, put them on the ends of the long tables and say "this is now self-organizing and self-service" and applaud me.

At which point it is revealed that it was indeed a 'performance' and we take a bow. Everyone looked relieved, but I think most people there got it earlier.

Anyway, the bank is very pleased - many of these investor people called the next day to thank them and found the seminar very interesting and entertaining. So a traditional and important (to the bank) lunch that had got so boring that they had a hard job keeping people there, is now back on track and I'm already invited back next year.

I'm planning with the actors (who are part of a company that arranges special events for large companies) to get more gigs based on this premise. I don't mind. They are fun to do, well-paid, and give me a chance to spread the SOS concept in the best way possible - by making it entertaining and challenging at the same time.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 01:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Brilliant.

I have found that "creatives" like artists and actors "get" the LLP quicker than anyone. That's why we managed to create the film "Art of Flirting" as an LLP with the actors as Member/partners.

Maybe you should enter into a marketing LLP with the company!

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 01:31:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Basically my presentation was about SOS's and how these concepts would affect business over the next few years, mainly by empowering individuals at all levels of organzations to become the 'assets' (and the power that brings) that they really are in knowledge and service companies.

Haven't we been hearing about 'empowering individuals at all levels of organisations' for - really - forever?

(Or at least since the 80s, which is when I started taking an adult interest.)

You can only empower individuals when organisations want them to be empowered, and only to the extent that they want them to be empowered. If company culture doesn't want empowerment, it will nod enthusiastically, pay a fat consultancy fee, and then subvert any practical attempts to make it happen.

While you're hobnobbing with the execs and the CEOs, their underlings will most likely still be writing detailed guidelines describing exactly how the peasants who do the frontline work are going to be spending their work days. (As I discovered while talking to someone who works in a call centre yesterday - and you probably have no idea how incredibly managed and scripted their actions are, right down to bathroom breaks.)

So why should anyone assume that SOS, or LLPs, or whatever is the buzzword of the week, aren't just another bourgeois toy that the ruling castes can use to entertain themselves, while being careful not share any real empowerment with anyone further down the greasy pole?

Excuse the cynicism, but - if we're talking about us and them - what is there in any of this that that makes it a different game in practice, not just in theory, for the hoi polloi?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 08:44:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
for the Curmudgeon of the Year Award 2006.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 02:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Glad it's strip rather than deep or drift mining.

Less danger of methane explosions that way.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 02:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well we all have problems sometimes with sitting in front of the screen for too long at a time ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 03:02:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you think I have any idea about how to make it happen??? :))))

Ok ok.. I think I agree with you, the best way for a person to develop multiple personalities and not believe that you are a single entity is to share.. and I must agree that probably acertain network size is absolutely the optimum. MOnkeys, case in point.

Regarding the state and the individual, I think I see froma nother point of view. Actually, what the state wants and desires...(well the state.. maybe the corporations in the last decade) .. is a sinle person entity who believes that he is one..They are the easiest to drive with external inputs... The state used to take that role. The appearance of the nationalistic state goes together with the appearance of the nationalsitic SELF. But lately corporation took over.. and well, the state became some kind of warrant in some aspects.

And of course, when the state or the corporations fail us.. or we think they do not accomodate those of us who liekto have multiple lifes and personalities...there is only one option... As M. Mead said (and as she is often quoted here)
"Yes, a small group of focused people can change the world. I do not know any other way"....the only way to change a belief, a vision, a narrative, a policy, an approach,... is for a group of individuals to generate and spread that approach,.....

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:04:34 PM EST
Yes...I wrote "state", when I should have written corporations...or even companies...

Chris Cook:

Companies??!! I speeet on zem...pttuh...

(Ah!  Ah!  So many people I will have to apologise to!)

The old companies of men...the guilds...is the new word...partnerships?  But that is New Labour....no words...only deeds this time round?  And one more for the road...and please, all of you!  I quote you coz I loved it the first time round and I want to share!  So...here we go...

someone:

Don't have Identity(ies), have personality, please! Don't worry about "being yourself", no doubt you are, having no choice in the matter. (You can't be Sven, he is taken.) Thus, perform yourself, perform your personality, that is created in this performance, and is never fixed or solid, but amorphous and ever evolving. Things are more interesting that way.

Just as great this time round!

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:19:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If I recommend a comment which quotes me, am I recommending myself? ET: reaching out and making friends by sharing reciprocal comment recommends. Your friends are those that recommend you, and that you recommend.

(One could datamine the ET recommends and create a visual representation in the form of a graph, with weighted edges for the recommends. Make a whole bunch, compile into a movie, and watch the connections change and evolve. I'll look into it when I get back from the holidays.)

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That would also give you a picture of the ET hierarchy, where authority flows in the reverse direction of the recommends.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 12:55:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Making a wild grab for authority. A few more fours and you will be at my command. Well, a lot more fours.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 08:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Amusing, TP.

Hopefully the commons still retain their gelding or caponing knives at the sharp.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 10:34:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the assumption that the map matches the territory is a little algorithmic, and may not match reality.

E.g. Colman hasn't been posting much recently, so he won't have a lot of fours. But he's still going to be high up in the hierarchy.

The reality is more likely to be that there's a complex two way interaction between the social network and the rec map.

One is a distorted image of the other, so it would be simplistic to assume that the relationship between recs and authority/mojo/your-name-here is a simple mirror.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 09:13:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
19th century British gentleman's club?

Looks like it.

Same way at DKOS.

I'm wondering if TU's here can rate themselves up: sort of like written masturbation and glory?

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 10:53:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought you were naffing off to do a PhD on feminist literature?

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 04:18:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, but can you suggest a better map?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 02:01:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who said the map matches the territory? The map represents the territory.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 20th, 2006 at 02:55:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you do it in NetLogo ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 01:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That sounds painful. I will use wget and ImageMagick with perl because I already know how to do that. Don't worry, I'll keep the rep rate low on page loads.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 01:25:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Gosh, you are the real thing! Suddenly I see it is all doable ;-)

You are a professional data-miner, no doubt.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 01:47:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I only data-mine recreationally and in moderation.
I do some perl, but by no means brilliantly.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 02:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If you wait until after Colman has taken over the server, you won't need Wget.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 02:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Praise Marx, and pass the dimunition...

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 02:16:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And break out the roof bolters!

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins
by EricC on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 02:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And hope the ventilation fans are working when this data mining begins.

And only smoke cigars and cigarettes in OSHA designated area.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 02:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
MMhhhhh

Why is that your "do not worry being yourself" is much more better than my "do not be yourself"...???

I will quit being myslef and will be your self for a while :)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Dec 19th, 2006 at 01:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries