[P2P-F] open capital License?

[flawer]

> a) it decides whether the tools for the project are created and by
> whom they are used.
> b) they decide the price of those tools( through lending).
>
> After this analysis, we see that a bank does decide what the economy
> produces. In general, the owner of money controls the economy because
> of those 2 reasons.
>
> Any ruleset thus has to find a way to remove those abilities from
> money.

if you attach a contract that promises the universalization of access 
you are giving more responsability and less rights to ownership (what 
money could buy), you won't be able to ask for money for the produced 
thing, and should let others use it, etc, so investing in my property is 
increasing my responsability, so i'd like to share that charge (peer 
property) and i'd like not being owner of too many things (i prefer to 
be plain user). the "a)" reason you mention is mentioned to be universal 
use by default.

i believe a job agency of workers investing their sales/budgets for the 
commons can be bought by a rich in $ (and it's an internal matter of us 
whether we know how to spend well the $ and if we still need to 'accept' 
them), and this not being a power over from the rich in $ towards us. It 
is rather a way we should experiment more, we shouldn't have much 
competition in the actual 'market' if we corporate so.


also the clausing of community currencies with the shareful producing 
condition, whether they choose the shareful project to be just accesible 
for their associates or for the whole world, should help defining their 
values and even justify the giving of 'basic incomes' for shareful 
producers works in this way (who could buy preferent use/access for 
those produced shareful things) (who could require to retain the 
ownership of the shareful production or give it to the corp)