On Monday, August 01, 2011 09:47:15 pm Michel Bauwens wrote:
It seems to me there is an emerging version of 'open' that is a hyper-neoliberal one, or perhaps right-wing libertarian,
see for example, http://miiu.org/wiki/Vesting_students_as_co-owners_of_schools
which must be about the most awful proposal for reforming education that I've seen so far ...
I usually associate openness with the concept of equal access, but that's a bad thing to do. As Martin and Devin were pointing out in another thread, open designs do not guarantee access to resources. It's why Stallman prefers the word 'free' rather than 'open', right? Being open is just one part of the equation. We must articulate the others. Openness and peer-based archetectures provide opportunity for equitable outcomes, but its the choices of people who engage with open systems that ultimately decide this. Openness in one aspect of society does not mean openness in others. A propertarian will try to leverage an open system to obtain more property. This is why I don't really see the point of open-source currencies. Replacing one monetary system with another doesn't change the underlying dynamics of domination. We could also have open-source atom bombs. Intent and outcomes matter. -Karl