<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=lumpoflabor@gmail.com
href="mailto:lumpoflabor@gmail.com">Sandwichman</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 02, 2011 9:11 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=p2p-foundation@lists.ourproject.org
href="mailto:p2p-foundation@lists.ourproject.org">P2P Foundation mailing
list</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [P2P-F]
Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV>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." <BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Below is Bollier's introduction to Quilligan's essay: <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>Many people don't recognise that the commons is not just
<EM>a thing</EM> – 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
href="http://www.kosmosjournal.org/CustomContentRetrieve.aspx?ID=3897902%20">a
thoughtful piece in the latest issue of <EM>Kosmos</EM> magazine</A>. 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.”</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in">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.</P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in">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.</P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in">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. </P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in">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.</P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in">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.”</P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in">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.</P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in">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.</P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in">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.</P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in">“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.</P>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in">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.</P><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Natalie Golovin <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:10natalie@cox.net">10natalie@cox.net</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>I am not captivated by labels, and wonder how you come to
the conclusion I'm<BR>an authoritarian when I support ideals that reject any
central<BR>authority-whether it derives from a dictator, a government or
crony<BR>capitalist bosses & their bankers. Many died in prison camps. I
never said<BR>anything about Reich dying in jail. Perhaps you have me confused
with<BR>another person who doesn't find his reputation compelling.<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: <A
href="mailto:ideasinc@ee.net">ideasinc@ee.net</A><BR>Sent: Sunday, October 02,
2011 1:05 PM<BR>To: P2P Foundation mailing list<BR>Subject: Re: [P2P-F]
Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City<BR><BR>You seem to have your
own investment in labels and attribution by<BR>association, which overall
perpetrates the same sin you have declared as<BR>inappropriate. Were you aware
that Reich died in prison, not jail, for<BR>"contempt of court" and that his
books were widely burned in the from<BR>about 1950 in the US. The Mass
Psychology of Fascism was published in<BR>1933, before he immigrated to the
US. As a study it is only thinly related<BR>to his later work relative to
sexual energy, Orogone. Sexual repression at<BR>that point was only a part of
his social psychological analysis of<BR>authoritarian cultures. So who else
will be guilty of your attributions of<BR>unintelligent and irrelevant or
worse. Sounds like authoritarianism to me.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>On Sun,
02 Oct 2011 15:09:41 -0400, Natalie Golovin <<A
href="mailto:10natalie@cox.net">10natalie@cox.net</A>><BR>wrote:<BR><BR>>
Reich was the darling of "soft" academia in the 60's. I find him<BR>>
irrelevant<BR>> as well as unappealing. My preference is the recent and
pragmatic Eric<BR>> Hoffer- a man of the people. The totalitarian left has
murdered more, and<BR>> caused far more economic despair than the Fascist
right. Dictators demand<BR>> unitary power/control to engineer/impose their
egotistical world-views.<BR>> Fascist corporatism has many more voices and
simpler motives. My "take"<BR>> on<BR>> Libertarianism is that it
couldn't be a mask for its own gain- because<BR>> there<BR>> are no real
leaders-no central authority. We ask for a limited,<BR>>
intelligent<BR>> and competent political structure that will act as honest
watch-dog,<BR>> moderator, umpire, referee- to negotiate competing demands
in a<BR>> free-market<BR>> society. The rewriting of the Interstate
Commerce Clause helped removed<BR>> govt<BR>> from local democratic
control. Abuses contributing to the current crisis<BR>> have been the
result of collusion among global corporate and political<BR>> leaders with
the eager assistance of an unethical financial community.<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:ideasinc@ee.net">ideasinc@ee.net</A><BR>> Sent: Sunday,
October 02, 2011 9:47 AM<BR>> To: P2P Foundation mailing list<BR>>
Subject: Re: [P2P-F]
Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City<BR>><BR>>
Natalie,<BR>> Wilhelm Reich wrote an excellent book, that generally is
ignored. The<BR>> title is the "Mass Psychology of Fascism." it is based
upon his direct<BR>> experience of the rise of Nazi fascism in Germany and
of his direct<BR>> contact with Stalinist communists which he also
describes as a form of<BR>> fascism. Then there are the various degrees of
totalitarianism. Both are<BR>> very similar by the enforced conformity to
authority. "Libertarianism" as<BR>> a concept has also been used to provide
an acceptable appearance for<BR>> other<BR>> forms of authoritarianism,
most notably the siege against small "d"<BR>> democracy and the role of
governance to protect and preserve the commons<BR>> in its many forms. The
Libertarian Party in the US has been gathering<BR>> point for nominal
conservatives who operate to diminish the commons in<BR>> multiple
contexts. Sticking to the outcomes and objectives as would be<BR>> expected
in a democratic process does seem like a better way to define<BR>>
and<BR>> sustain an open process. Yes, there is a substantial potential
problems<BR>> when appearance and labels are accepted as either adequate or
applicable.<BR>> In short you, imo, are quite correct in being suspicious
of labeling as<BR>> basis for political correctness.<BR>><BR>>
Tadit<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2011 12:19:19
-0400, Natalie Golovin <<A
href="mailto:10natalie@cox.net">10natalie@cox.net</A>><BR>>
wrote:<BR>><BR>>> Declaration will cause movement to lose a lot of
support. You may say<BR>>> you don’t care about Libertarians anyway-not
very democratic attitude.<BR>>> When the Left gets going it’s more
frightening than the Corporatocracy<BR>>><BR>>> From: Michel
Bauwens<BR>>> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 12:14 AM<BR>>> To:
p2p-foundation<BR>>> Cc: Amaia Arcos<BR>>> Subject: [P2P-F]
Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City<BR>>><BR>>> <A
href="http://p2pfoundation.net/Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City"
target=_blank>http://p2pfoundation.net/Declaration_of_the_Occupation_of_New_York_City</A><BR>>><BR>>>
Dear Amaia, can you publish this on our blog?<BR>>><BR>>>
Michel<BR>><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>>
P2P Foundation - Mailing list<BR>> <A href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net"
target=_blank>http://www.p2pfoundation.net</A><BR>> <A
href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation"
target=_blank>https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</A><BR>><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> P2P Foundation -
Mailing list<BR>> <A href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net"
target=_blank>http://www.p2pfoundation.net</A><BR>> <A
href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation"
target=_blank>https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</A><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>P2P
Foundation - Mailing list<BR><A href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net"
target=_blank>http://www.p2pfoundation.net</A><BR><A
href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation"
target=_blank>https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</A><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>P2P
Foundation - Mailing list<BR><A href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net"
target=_blank>http://www.p2pfoundation.net</A><BR><A
href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation"
target=_blank>https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</A><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Sandwichman<BR>
<DIV
style="Z-INDEX: 9999; POSITION: absolute; TEXT-ALIGN: left; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 130%; MARGIN-TOP: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; WORD-WRAP: break-word; VISIBILITY: hidden; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10px; OVERFLOW: hidden; PADDING-TOP: 0px; LEFT: -5000px"
id=avg_ls_inline_popup></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>P2P Foundation - Mailing
list<BR>http://www.p2pfoundation.net<BR>https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>