[P2P-F] Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City

Mon Oct 3 06:44:40 CEST 2011

Thank you Sandwichman for an excellent clarification. I’m a common variety Libertarian that believes property rights are necessary to maintain liberty, and that human nature corresponds more to the views of Hobbes than Rousseau. That position doesn’t negate collaboration, and it does require lawful adjudication of those rights by responsible, democratically elected governments. I think there may be quite a large number of “us” (as well as angry citizens that don’t have a set philosophical position) involved in the NY & Boston protests. My point is simply that we all can agree on the thieving banksters-let’s work together on this one and not alienate each other or momentum will be lost. And as a previous reader pointed out, the mainstream media carries the water for the thieves, and will rip us apart at the first sign of weakness.

From: Sandwichman 
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 9:11 PM
To: P2P Foundation mailing list 
Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City

The following is rather long but it seems to me it is worth considering in light of Natalie's "take" on Libertarianism. Maybe Natalie has her own private version of Libertarianism, but the more common variety is based on the notion of "natural rights" and a "system of natural liberty" in which private property is a key premise. A couple of weeks ago, David Bollier posted a link on his blog to an essay by James Quilligan, who discussed the epistemology and metaphysics of liberal political philosophy in an article in Kosmos magazine, "The Failed Metaphysics Behind Private Property: Sharing Our Commonhood." 

When people talk about "liberty" they may be talking about two very different and contradictory ideas. One of those ideas has to do with personal autonomy. The other has to do with the primacy of private property, even to the extent of over-riding personal liberty. The ownership of slaves, for example, is not seen by the second view as a violation of private-property based natural law.

Below is Bollier's introduction to Quilligan's essay: 

  Many people don't recognise that the commons is not just a thing – a physical element of nature or a resource like the Internet – but a distinct metaphysics and epistemology that challenges some deeply rooted premises of contemporary politics and policy.  James Quilligan probes this territory with a thoughtful piece in the latest issue of Kosmos magazine. In particular, he explores the “social nature of property”and how its individual, atomistic nature in liberal political philosophy is responsible for “its catastrophic impact on the commons.”
  The essay is not a quick read, but it is a provocative and penetrating piece about some of the deeply rooted assumptions that shape our understandings of property, individual identity and how government and public policy should behave.  All such discussions must start with John Locke, the great 17th Century philosopher who created the enduring justifications for property rights.

  One of Locke's central ideas is that property is inherently about individual rights of ownership and control, which means the right to exclude others and to ignore the larger social and ecological context of those rights, not to mention future generations. This understanding, in turn, entails an understanding of a human being as a dualistic creature, one who has a sovereign mind and a separate and independent material body.  The mind/body dualism is actually the basis for a larger political theory that assigns property rights to individuals (and not larger collectives) and charges governments with recognizing and enforcing those individual rights.

  Quilligan traces the consequences of the mind/body dichotomy and how it in turn has led to a corresponding separation of humans from nature itself. Under liberal political theory, humankind is meant to assert its mastery over inert, objectified nature; it has no need or obligation to enter into a subject-to-subject relationship with it, as most traditional and indigenous cultures do.  That's why the very idea of "nature's rights" is nonsensical to western, modern societies -- and why Bolivia, for example, regards modern development schemes and market exploitation as an egregious, irreverent crime against the cosmos. 

  The epistemological foundation pioneered by Locke and others has enabled modern societies to develop science and technology, and a market economy that is capable of unprecedented material output.  But it is also responsible for human societies that are quite alienated from nature as a sovereign force in its own right.  That issue lies at the heart of so many of our environmental problems.  We presume that we are separate from nature, and that nature itself is a passive object with no agency of its own.

  Another, usually overlooked result of this metaphysic, notes Quilligan, is that “nearly all autonomous rights to the commons are unconstitutional since state legitimacy is given almost exclusively to private and public property. Hence, common property has little foundation in civil law. Claims for the commons are largely dismissed as pre-modern ideas, superstitions, or excuses for anarchy and piracy. Both natural and social commons are viewed merely as a passive field waiting to be acted upon – a res nullius in legal terms – something to be claimed, contractualized and developed as private property.”

  An equally profound and overlooked result of the liberal property framework, writes Quilligan, is that “it veils the state's monopoly over the legitimate use of coercive power to suppress the self-organization of common property and to punish those who violate the rules of private property.” One need only consider how Native Americans were forced to become individual property holders as a precondition for American citizenship; or how the collective interests of subsistence and traditional societies in Africa and Asia are regarded as legally nonexistent; or how the collective interests of communities on the Internet has no legal standing but for the private-law hacks like Creative Commons licenses and the General Public License for free software.

  I won't recount the entire essay, but suffice it to say Quilligan traces these philosophical principles up to our contemporary neoliberal regime, noting how the market and state have joined forces to become a collaborative “Market State,” blurring the lines between the two realms and marginalizing the role of representative government. This has been crucial premise for globalizing commerce and elevating market interets over state interests.

  All of this history and philosophy matters because it helps us understand the deeper challenges we face in “claiming our commonhood,” in Quilligan's phrase, and in establishing new sorts of trustee systems for managing our common property.

  “Commonhood,” he writes, “is the self-organizing and rule-guided practice of a community to preserve, make, manage or use a resource through collaboration.” One reason that such a system can succeed is because it asserts a more accurate, humanistic model of human nature than that of private property, which is severely limited to the point of caricature. While it is true that we all exhibit material and rational self-interests (as economists never tire of declaring), it is also true that we are intrinsically social creatures who care about what others think, and are prepared to cooperate in order to establish stable, robust and enduring societies. The Hobbesean vision of a nasty and brutish humanity is certainly not the whole story.

  Quilligan's essay is well-worth reading. It is the beginning of a larger series of essays that he plans for Kosmos starting this fall, entitled, “Toward a Common Theory of Value.” While many people regard philosophy as too far afield from the hurly-burly of practical, contemporary politics, it is highly useful to situate the commons in the larger context of history and philosophy.  How else are we to develop astute strategic approaches toward reclaiming our commons?  Quilligan's piece is a great point of departure for this much-needed conversation and activism.

On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Natalie Golovin <10natalie at cox.net> wrote:

  I am not captivated by labels, and wonder how you come to the conclusion I'm
  an authoritarian when I support ideals that reject any central
  authority-whether it derives from a dictator, a government or crony
  capitalist bosses & their bankers. Many died in prison camps. I never said
  anything about Reich dying in jail. Perhaps you have me confused with
  another person who doesn't find his reputation compelling.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: ideasinc at ee.net
  Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 1:05 PM
  To: P2P Foundation mailing list
  Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City

  You seem to have your own investment in labels and attribution by
  association, which overall perpetrates the same sin you have declared as
  inappropriate. Were you aware that Reich died in prison, not jail, for
  "contempt of court" and that his books were widely burned in the from
  about 1950 in the US. The Mass Psychology of Fascism was published in
  1933, before he immigrated to the US. As a study it is only thinly related
  to his later work relative to sexual energy, Orogone. Sexual repression at
  that point was only a part of his social psychological analysis of
  authoritarian cultures. So who else will be guilty of your attributions of
  unintelligent and irrelevant or worse. Sounds like authoritarianism to me.

  On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 15:09:41 -0400, Natalie Golovin <10natalie at cox.net>
  wrote:

  > Reich was the darling of "soft" academia in the 60's. I find him
  > irrelevant
  > as well as unappealing. My preference is the recent and pragmatic Eric
  > Hoffer- a man of the people. The totalitarian left has murdered more, and
  > caused far more economic despair than the Fascist right. Dictators demand
  > unitary power/control to engineer/impose their egotistical world-views.
  > Fascist corporatism has many more voices and simpler motives. My "take"
  > on
  > Libertarianism is that it couldn't be a mask for its own gain- because
  > there
  > are no real leaders-no central authority. We ask for a limited,
  > intelligent
  > and competent political structure that will act as honest watch-dog,
  > moderator, umpire, referee- to negotiate competing demands in a
  > free-market
  > society. The rewriting of the Interstate Commerce Clause helped removed
  > govt
  > from local democratic control. Abuses contributing to the current crisis
  > have been the result of collusion among global corporate and political
  > leaders with the eager assistance of an unethical financial community.
  > From: ideasinc at ee.net
  > Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 9:47 AM
  > To: P2P Foundation mailing list
  > Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City
  >
  > Natalie,
  > Wilhelm Reich wrote an excellent book, that generally is ignored. The
  > title is the "Mass Psychology of Fascism." it is based upon his direct
  > experience of the rise of Nazi fascism in Germany and of his direct
  > contact with Stalinist communists which he also describes as a form of
  > fascism. Then there are the various degrees of totalitarianism. Both are
  > very similar by the enforced conformity to authority. "Libertarianism" as
  > a concept has also been used to provide an acceptable appearance for
  > other
  > forms of authoritarianism, most notably the siege against small "d"
  > democracy and the role of governance to protect and preserve the commons
  > in its many forms. The Libertarian Party in the US has been gathering
  > point for nominal conservatives who operate to diminish the commons in
  > multiple contexts. Sticking to the outcomes and objectives as would be
  > expected in a democratic process does seem like a better way to define
  > and
  > sustain an open process. Yes, there is a substantial potential problems
  > when appearance and labels are accepted as either adequate or applicable.
  > In short you, imo, are quite correct in being suspicious of labeling as
  > basis for political correctness.
  >
  > Tadit
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 12:19:19 -0400, Natalie Golovin <10natalie at cox.net>
  > wrote:
  >
  >> Declaration will cause movement to lose a lot of support. You may say
  >> you don’t care about Libertarians anyway-not very democratic attitude.
  >> When the Left gets going it’s more frightening than the Corporatocracy
  >>
  >> From: Michel Bauwens
  >> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 12:14 AM
  >> To: p2p-foundation
  >> Cc: Amaia Arcos
  >> Subject: [P2P-F] Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City
  >>
  >> http://p2pfoundation.net/Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City
  >>
  >> Dear Amaia, can you publish this on our blog?
  >>
  >> Michel
  >
  > _______________________________________________
  > P2P Foundation - Mailing list
  > http://www.p2pfoundation.net
  > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
  >
  >
  > _______________________________________________
  > P2P Foundation - Mailing list
  > http://www.p2pfoundation.net
  > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

  _______________________________________________
  P2P Foundation - Mailing list
  http://www.p2pfoundation.net
  https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

  _______________________________________________
  P2P Foundation - Mailing list
  http://www.p2pfoundation.net
  https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- 
Sandwichman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing list
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20111002/0924d13f/attachment.htm 