11 American Nations
Locked
1 ...
56789101112
1 ...
56789101112
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
 
|
On 1/13/14, 10:49 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Once a month (I forget the schedule .. Nth something of the month I > think) neighbors would gather to maintain the park... trim, dig, > plant, prune, etc. Nobody was in charge, but there were a few > leftovers from the original design/creation. It was very > self-organizing. [..] > It was the most self-organized, ad-hoc, functional neighborhood I've > ever imagined. Far from perfect, breakins now and then, mostly cars. [..] > it gave me hope for the viability of a commons. > I have plenty of work to do and other interests. If there is a place to take my dog for a run, that's great. What I want is to do is pay into a pool, with everyone else. It is obviously the sensible thing to do, and because makes many more big things possible. I want professionals to do the job. I don't want to be sneered at when I accidentally sit on a `community' swing or picnic table or whatever because I don't show up for the weekend love-in. (I'm not going to show up.) Then I do what I'm relatively good at, and the the landscaping people, etc. do what they are good at. I'm a tax and spend liberal because I don't have the time or patience for all this. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Gosh, guys. The longer I stay out of this conversation, the more sense it makes. Lesson to be learned, there, I guess. [sigh] I assume you guys know that there is a HUGE scientific literature on this quandary. Altruism, cheating, cheater detection, altruistic enforcement. Does anybody know where it stands at the moment. Time I read a recent review. The basic question is, "In our explanations of human behavior, do we always have to appeal to benefits to Ego's germline, or can we appeal to explanations based on benefits to the group of which Ego is a part? Here, FWIW, is the most serious contribution that I made to that literature. Perhaps I could get you guys to read it by promising hereafter to be an altruistic lurker. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- Marcus sed/Glen replied >> If >> it is too painful to fund the fund, the pain needs to be spread out >> in some systematic way with actual government IMO. > Before I started participating in this hyper local government (our > neighborhood development association - which is a branch of the city, > not one of those things property owners are supposed to join and pay > dues to), I completely disagreed with you. I assumed anyone who owned > a home would be interested in preserving their home's value by > investing in the local community. Apparently, I was wrong. There is > an energetic subset of those people. But most of them just don't give > a damn until they need help. Most will only come to meetings when > they have something to bitch about. > > So, perhaps that's why I'm slowly turning into a liberal. It's time > to move... maybe out to Wyoming or somesuch so that I can again call > myself "libertarian" with a straight face. > When we lived in Berkeley for 1 year, one short block off Telegraph at the Oakland border, a neighborhood association (Halcyon Court) took over an underutilized parking lot and made it into a small greenspace/park. It was a beautiful little park and it was the gathering place for many... it had many lives in a single day. Once a month (I forget the schedule .. Nth something of the month I think) neighbors would gather to maintain the park... trim, dig, plant, prune, etc. Nobody was in charge, but there were a few leftovers from the original design/creation. It was very self-organizing. We learned of it by word of mouth. No newsletter or e-mail list... just conversations among neighbors "you coming out tomorrow?" "what do you think most needs doing?" "I've got some stain for the bench, what do you think?" mostly pairwise or 3 way convos. Most of the people who came out (OK half) were not even homeowners... they lived in one of the many small apartment buildings (quad/six plex ish). It was about investing in the "common experience" of the neighborhood as much as any percieved long term cash value of homes... though those who did own there certainly seemed to appreciate it and threw down strongly at these gatherings. Most every week, someone would mention about 3PM... say... I've got a pot of beans on if anyone wants to come by... I live over there (pointing). By "closing time", a network of ad-hoc eatovers was passed around... and anyone hanging out was likely as not to stop in two or three homes for a bite or a libation. The park had 2-3 homeless who slept there every night... They were up and out before the 6 AM crowd started to arrive with dogs for a pee or a poop (never once saw any poop left... everyone just did their part) then the Volvo wagons with the kids for the neighborhood day care started arriving around 7. By 9, that crowd was gone and some of the local families would wander in with kids... one slide, 2 swings and lots of wood chips and a lawn big enough for a kids pickup soccer game. By 3 or so, the high school kids showed up to smoke (tobacco and whacko)... then later, the Volvos to pick up the kids, the evening dog walk... neighborhood chitchat... maybe an adult smoke outside the house... or kids at the playground... then sometime after dark you would see things being "lit up" in the dark... Cigs, Weed and possibly Crack. If I took my dog out after 10, I'd probably have to call her away from a sleeping body in the bushes... she loved to lick the homeless... they are pretty tasty to a dog I think. It was the most self-organized, ad-hoc, functional neighborhood I've ever imagined. Far from perfect, breakins now and then, mostly cars. Bums hitting you up for spare change. Never really quite "clean" but never filthy. Hard to find good parking. NEVER a cop to be seen. Never sirens or lights. 1/2 block away every hour... but not in this self-run neighborhood, mostly of short-timer renters, and some "vagrants"... it gave me hope for the viability of a commons. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 01/13/2014 12:42 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Then I do what I'm relatively good at, and the the landscaping > people, etc. do what they are good at. I'm a tax and spend liberal > because I don't have the time or patience for all this. That's a fairly robust argument. I use it myself in choosing to donate money, rather than labor to the community garden. Some locals donate other things like fencing, compost, etc. Those who want to do the manual labor do so with the money, tools, and materials donated by those of us who don't want to do the labor. However, the counter argument is exemplified by our property tax bill. We have an entire page of various taxes for various things. What bothers me about it is not the $ amount or the collection, but that it needs to be delineated. I like it for the transparency, but I can't help but think that government function could be much more efficiently handled if some of those projects were executed using NGOs. The general argument turns out to be one of inappropriate or mismatched scales. For example, the county has various things going on in various parts of the county (e.g. light rail coming to the North Eastern most corner of the county, urban renewal in unincorporated areas surrounding various cities, etc.). The county, as a cooperating governing body has to weigh in on these things and levy (or not) taxes to help cover its negotiated participation. But the taxes paid by someone way off in some distant place within the county are not lower, despite the expectation they'll never use the services they're paying for. A similar example would be funding for foreign wars like troops in Afghanistan or drone attacks in Pakistan ... or collecting money from me so the NSA can spy on me. So, while I think I grok your argument for government run services as opposed to more organic organizations, it's not an unassailable position and, indeed, is fundamentally flawed in some contexts. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
On 1/13/14, 2:07 PM, glen wrote:
> The general argument turns out to be one of inappropriate or > mismatched scales. For example, the county has various things going on > in various parts of the county (e.g. light rail coming to the North > Eastern most corner of the county, urban renewal in unincorporated > areas surrounding various cities, etc.). The county, as a cooperating > governing body has to weigh in on these things and levy (or not) taxes > to help cover its negotiated participation. But the taxes paid by > someone way off in some distant place within the county are not lower, > despite the expectation they'll never use the services they're paying for. The choice of scale is a trade off, between collecting enough money to do interesting things with, and having geographically localized, well-tailored control. It doesn't bother me that New Mexico has a debt obligation to Rail Runner, one that I'll be paying too. It is of little interest to me if Rail Runner ever becomes profitable. I've only used Rail Runner a handful of times. I like the idea of that public investment, because I know other people that do need that transportation service will have it, and that their participation in the economy, which it facilitates, will in the end help me as a resident of New Mexico. It means that the state is trying to raise the bar for everyone, and that by itself is admirable enough to pay for. Period. I'm also not a big fan of defining communities only in terms of geographic constraints. For example, where I grew up, I was forced to go to the local high schools, which were mostly useless other than to instill in me an overwhelming loathing of rednecks and a general sense of hopelessness in the future. Had there been larger districts that let me move around, I would have liked that. > A similar example would be funding for foreign wars like troops in > Afghanistan or drone attacks in Pakistan ... or collecting money from > me so the NSA can spy on me. So, while I think I grok your argument > for government run services as opposed to more organic organizations, > it's not an unassailable position and, indeed, is fundamentally flawed > in some contexts. At the federal level I also accept that the intelligence agencies will make decisions that I won't be involved-in, and that I have to trust these people to be public servants and servants of the U.S. Constitution and to use their best professional judgements on things. I don't even know what it means to do intelligence operations organically? More like Blackwater? Or just no military and intelligence at all? If elected officials at any level grossly violate my expectations, I'll vote against them and encourage others to do the same. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
On 01/13/2014 01:33 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> It means that the state is trying to raise the bar for everyone, and > that by itself is admirable enough to pay for. Period. It's an easy argument to make when you approve of the objective. It's more difficult when you disapprove. Of course, part of being a liberal is that you will generally approve of spending-for-change more than you disapprove. So, for me a better example than funding rail would be funding the construction of new and repair of old asphalt roads, especially those without bike lanes. There are sections of Portland with lots of unpaved roads. The people near them tend to do interesting things with them, including the unauthorized planting of gardens and such. We even have a charity devoted to tearing up dilapidated paved areas. http://depave.org/ These unpaved areas encourage everything I like, most importantly slowing drivers down. Similarly, we have some "right wing" county commissioners in my county (doesn't contain Portland) who want to defund rail and pour more money into resurfacing roads. Both the metro and county governments take my tax money and spend it paving roads and parking lots that I think should be depaved entirely. So, even if I were a full-blown tax and spend liberal, I'd disapprove of their use of my money. (Granted, it's partly because I have a 4 wheel drive gas guzzling pick-up truck and an "adventure" style motorcycle ... if all I had were a Smart car or a fat-tired harley, I might approve of more pavement... or at least more grading.) > I don't even > know what it means to do intelligence operations organically? More like > Blackwater? Or just no military and intelligence at all? I'm not suggesting that all nation-scale activities could be organized by the members of your local YMCA. [grin] I'm simply saying that your (and my when I choose to use it) argument against organically grown efforts and/or NGOs is not always reliable. There are near-government intelligence operations that are not as criminal as Xi Services, BTW. As for military, there are those who argue nations should not have standing armies, for whatever those arguments are worth. > If elected officials at any level grossly violate my expectations, I'll > vote against them and encourage others to do the same. This is a frequently cited idealization. In fact, however, it's rarely useful. Polls consistently show that people disapprove of Congress, for example, but approve of their own congress person. Moreover, the necessary continuity of the non-elected members of government (staff, agency employees, military brass, etc.) ensure that very little will change from one elected rep. to another. Not to mention that the only people you can vote for are pre-selected by forces beyond your control. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
"So, for me a better example than funding rail would be funding the
construction of new and repair of old asphalt roads, especially those without bike lanes. There are sections of Portland with lots of unpaved roads. The people near them tend to do interesting things with them, including the unauthorized planting of gardens and such. We even have a charity devoted to tearing up dilapidated paved areas." I looked at their website and they talk about numbers like 2000 square feet and 2 acres. Tearing out a whole backroad (I can think of some in the Oregon country that might as well go) would seem to require dump trucks and pavement pulverizers. Million dollar investments. And of course unless the idea is to be an eco-terrorists, that would require approvals from the county. Marcus -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
On 01/13/2014 04:03 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> I looked at their website and they talk about numbers like 2000 square feet > and 2 acres. Tearing out a whole backroad (I can think of some in the > Oregon country that might as well go) would seem to require dump trucks and > pavement pulverizers. Million dollar investments. And of course unless the > idea is to be an eco-terrorists, that would require approvals from the > county. You're leaving out the time variable. While it's true that tearing out an entire backroad in a minimal amount of time would require such an investment, it's not necessarily true if you simply allow the regional domains the road crosses to do whatever they want with that region of the road. Perhaps an equivalent amount of money/effort would be spent when summed over all the little efforts, over the entire time (decades? centuries?). Perhaps not. In any case, the larger governmental bodies could simply relinquish their claims and let it go "fallow", as it were. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
On 1/13/14, 5:31 PM, glen wrote:
> While it's true that tearing out > an entire backroad in a minimal amount of time would require such an > investment, it's not necessarily true if you simply allow the regional > domains the road crosses to do whatever they want with that region of > the road. Might be scalable, assuming farm equipment. http://commanderattachments.com/bhpr/ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
On 1/13/14 7:34 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 1/13/14, 5:31 PM, glen wrote: >> While it's true that tearing out >> an entire backroad in a minimal amount of time would require such an >> investment, it's not necessarily true if you simply allow the regional >> domains the road crosses to do whatever they want with that region of >> the road. > Might be scalable, assuming farm equipment. > > http://commanderattachments.com/bhpr/ We don't have prison road-gangs the way we used to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1ExCqSnYb4 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 1/13/14 1:42 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> On 1/13/14, 10:49 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> Once a month (I forget the schedule .. Nth something of the month I >> think) neighbors would gather to maintain the park... trim, dig, >> plant, prune, etc. Nobody was in charge, but there were a few >> leftovers from the original design/creation. It was very >> self-organizing. > [..] >> It was the most self-organized, ad-hoc, functional neighborhood I've >> ever imagined. Far from perfect, breakins now and then, mostly cars. > [..] >> it gave me hope for the viability of a commons. >> > I have plenty of work to do and other interests. > If there is a place to take my dog for a run, that's great. What I > want is to do is pay into a pool, with everyone else. The rest of the "commons" *was* managed by taxes... this was a tiny oasis within it. It had a quality that could not be bought with taxes or any other mode. Too bad if you have never experienced something like that. > It is obviously the sensible thing to do, and because makes many more > big things possible. I want professionals to do the job. I don't > want to be sneered at when I accidentally sit on a `community' swing > or picnic table or whatever because I don't show up for the weekend > love-in. (I'm not going to show up.) If you read what I wrote you might recognize that roughly half the population in the neighborhood did *not* show up for the love in. The homeless who slept there and hung out mid-day did not show up... or the teens.. and nobody ran any of them off, nor sneered at them. They were all relatively welcome, and they did their part by NOT abusing the situation... fading out when it was time to fade perhaps? > Then I do what I'm relatively good at, and the the landscaping people, > etc. do what they are good at. Landscaping people aren't good at investing themselves in their own neighborhood. They are good at (if you are lucky) doing what they are paid to do better than those who pay them. > I'm a tax and spend liberal because I don't have the time or patience > for all this. Ok... you have convinced me... no sense in having any hope for the commons. It clearly requires patience... and showing up... and what else? Other sensibilities that are either hard to come by or in some way perceived as inappropriate (love-in?)... > Marcus Carry on, - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
Glen writes:
> I use it myself in choosing to donate money, rather than labor to the community garden. At some cost premium, and perhaps quality penalty, I pay money at this place called a grocery store. On 1/14/14, 12:34 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > The rest of the "commons" *was* managed by taxes... this was a tiny > oasis within it. It had a quality that could not be bought with taxes > or any other mode. Too bad if you have never experienced something > like that. When people care about something, especially when they are skilled, cooperative people that have time and motivation it shows. It's better. On the other hand, there's the possibility that contributors (generically speaking, not just the case you describe) just see a `community' project as better because they have investment in it, or because that is the context in which they see or make friends. >> It is obviously the sensible thing to do, and because makes many more >> big things possible. I want professionals to do the job. I don't >> want to be sneered at when I accidentally sit on a `community' swing >> or picnic table or whatever because I don't show up for the weekend >> love-in. (I'm not going to show up.) > If you read what I wrote you might recognize that roughly half the > population in the neighborhood did *not* show up for the love in. The > homeless who slept there and hung out mid-day did not show up... or > the teens.. and nobody ran any of them off, nor sneered at them. > They were all relatively welcome, and they did their part by NOT > abusing the situation... fading out when it was time to fade perhaps? provincialism is not my main objection. My main objection is to the possibility of cutting professional maintenance and city planning assuming volunteers will step in. In the interest of some implied merit of `investing in my neighborhood', which defined in some way that I'm not getting to define, and I mostly don't care about. My true neighborhood consists of that which is in my working memory, over time. That may or may not include other objects or activities in my geographic proximity. Some geographically-local infrastructure is necessary to support those other dimensions, but otherwise is incidental. So I expect to pay taxes to support that platform, like I would anywhere. If the platform is falling apart (in some objective way, not that the color of varnish on the play equipment isn't beautiful enough), spend more on it and raise taxes to pay for it. >> Then I do what I'm relatively good at, and the the landscaping >> people, etc. do what they are good at. > Landscaping people aren't good at investing themselves in their own > neighborhood. They are good at (if you are lucky) doing what they > are paid to do better than those who pay them. I would say that's fine, provided they enjoy their work. (See adjacent remark.) Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Conservatives don't care how close the commons gets so long as it doesn't
get too high; Liberals don't care how close the commons gets so long as it doesn't get too close. Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:34 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Extended sense of The Commons On 1/13/14 1:42 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > On 1/13/14, 10:49 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> Once a month (I forget the schedule .. Nth something of the month I >> think) neighbors would gather to maintain the park... trim, dig, >> plant, prune, etc. Nobody was in charge, but there were a few >> leftovers from the original design/creation. It was very >> self-organizing. > [..] >> It was the most self-organized, ad-hoc, functional neighborhood I've >> ever imagined. Far from perfect, breakins now and then, mostly cars. > [..] >> it gave me hope for the viability of a commons. >> > I have plenty of work to do and other interests. > If there is a place to take my dog for a run, that's great. What I > want is to do is pay into a pool, with everyone else. The rest of the "commons" *was* managed by taxes... this was a tiny oasis within it. It had a quality that could not be bought with taxes or any other mode. Too bad if you have never experienced something like that. > It is obviously the sensible thing to do, and because makes many more > big things possible. I want professionals to do the job. I don't > want to be sneered at when I accidentally sit on a `community' swing > or picnic table or whatever because I don't show up for the weekend > love-in. (I'm not going to show up.) If you read what I wrote you might recognize that roughly half the population in the neighborhood did *not* show up for the love in. The homeless who slept there and hung out mid-day did not show up... or the teens.. and nobody ran any of them off, nor sneered at them. They were all relatively welcome, and they did their part by NOT abusing the situation... fading out when it was time to fade perhaps? > Then I do what I'm relatively good at, and the the landscaping people, > etc. do what they are good at. Landscaping people aren't good at investing themselves in their own neighborhood. They are good at (if you are lucky) doing what they are paid to do better than those who pay them. > I'm a tax and spend liberal because I don't have the time or patience > for all this. Ok... you have convinced me... no sense in having any hope for the commons. It clearly requires patience... and showing up... and what else? Other sensibilities that are either hard to come by or in some way perceived as inappropriate (love-in?)... > Marcus Carry on, - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus-
I can pick nits on this until the chimps come home (using Glen's metaphor of communication/discussion as a grooming exercise). My point is that a commons can arise and be maintained through good old fashioned enlightened self interest, even within the matrix of a complex and often fascist bureaucratic (this is me describing Berkeley City Government) system. I know quite well that most people don't want to engage at that level "anymore". It is possible that nobody ever really did, that everyone throughout history and across sociopolitical classes around the world has been hankering for there to be a system of specialization, backed up by strong government to implement it and enforce it when necessary. When I described "abuse or fade out", you are absolutely correct that norms were being applied (by me in describing it and I believe by the participants in choosing how to behave across a wide range of varying conditions). No police (or lynch mobs) were involved in rousting people from the park when it might otherwise have been "abusive" for them to remain... it seemed to "just work". This would never have happened if the city didn't have a program that supported it in the first place. It *was* city funds, specifically for this purpose that brought in the huge yellow machines for a week to rip out the pavement, pour curbs and sidewalks and dump a hundred tons of soil and maybe even lay the sod. But it wasn't the Berkeley City council deciding that this particular parking lot would be better off being a park... how could they know that, really? They knew it when a critical mass (5%, 10%?) of the locals to that neighborhood decided to apply to their program for doing precisely this kind of project. And then they Being a rainbow farting unicorn oftentimes, I may just not have noticed the little red dot dancing on the homeless guys eyelids from the sniper with a laser sight on the 4th floor of the apartment building whose assigned task was to give the smelly bastards an unequivocal "wakey wakey" call if they weren't out by sunrise... or the mound of bulbs under which the bodies of those who did not snap to the program were buried, literally "pushing up the daisies". I have more examples of situations where the commons never get started or are destroyed in a frenzy of greed and/or neglect than I have a coherent whole emerging out of "enlightened self interest". And I have beaucoup examples of total fuckaroos from the top down. I'm with you on the Railrunner, but the Aamodt water litigation/case/system in the "valley" is perhaps the perfect complement. The population density and other qualities of the combined sets of valleys (Tesuque, Nambe, Pojoaque) have brought things to the point where a centralized water system would be an efficient and possibly necessary alternative to 10,000 individual wells of varying age, quality and safety. Such a system is almost impossible to imagine arising *without* a strong centralized government (huge amounts of federal funding are being tapped, SF County and 4 Pueblo govt's are involved in the planning and the permission generating). The same geopolitical region lost it's main/best/almost-only broadband (Motorola Canopy system run by the San I Pueblo) this year. A huge federally funded and state/pueblo/country managed project to run fiber backbone (RediNet) through the general area was just coming to fruit about the same time. I tried to organize a cooperative to handle the "first mile" because the likes of Comcast, Centurylink, and Cell Providers have only been able (or willing?) to gather up the low hanging fruit, leaving the rest to fall to the ground and rot. I'd guess that half the people living in the area have no access to high speed networking... period. The topography and maybe more to the point, the right-of-way situation among the pueblos, and an odd mix of sociocultural aesthetics has made a fairly simple technical problem unsolvable sociopolitically as far as I can tell. Among other things I got to mix it up with a few folks who *have* and *do* manage Cooperative broadband and even telecomm systems... and was reminded how we are not really very good at "cooperative ventures"... The demise of the Santa Fe Complex, and at least half of my own projects/collaborations is also a testimony to this. Before "escaping from the Institution" I think I believed the percentage to be closer to 5% or 10% at best... it was probably just my inner Murky Dismal talking. Now I keep myself moving forward on a diet of Rainbow Colored Unicorn farts... I get better mileage entreprenuerially from them than the other kind. - Rainbow Bright > Glen writes: > >> I use it myself in choosing to donate money, rather than labor to the >> community garden. > > At some cost premium, and perhaps quality penalty, I pay money at this > place called a grocery store. > > On 1/14/14, 12:34 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> The rest of the "commons" *was* managed by taxes... this was a tiny >> oasis within it. It had a quality that could not be bought with >> taxes or any other mode. Too bad if you have never experienced >> something like that. > When people care about something, especially when they are skilled, > cooperative people that have time and motivation it shows. It's > better. On the other hand, there's the possibility that contributors > (generically speaking, not just the case you describe) just see a > `community' project as better because they have investment in it, or > because that is the context in which they see or make friends. >>> It is obviously the sensible thing to do, and because makes many >>> more big things possible. I want professionals to do the job. I >>> don't want to be sneered at when I accidentally sit on a `community' >>> swing or picnic table or whatever because I don't show up for the >>> weekend love-in. (I'm not going to show up.) >> If you read what I wrote you might recognize that roughly half the >> population in the neighborhood did *not* show up for the love in. The >> homeless who slept there and hung out mid-day did not show up... or >> the teens.. and nobody ran any of them off, nor sneered at them. >> They were all relatively welcome, and they did their part by NOT >> abusing the situation... fading out when it was time to fade perhaps? > Abuse the situation? Fade out? Norms are being asserted here. But > provincialism is not my main objection. My main objection is to the > possibility of cutting professional maintenance and city planning > assuming volunteers will step in. In the interest of some implied > merit of `investing in my neighborhood', which defined in some way > that I'm not getting to define, and I mostly don't care about. My > true neighborhood consists of that which is in my working memory, over > time. That may or may not include other objects or activities in my > geographic proximity. Some geographically-local infrastructure is > necessary to support those other dimensions, but otherwise is > incidental. So I expect to pay taxes to support that platform, like I > would anywhere. If the platform is falling apart (in some objective > way, not that the color of varnish on the play equipment isn't > beautiful enough), spend more on it and raise taxes to pay for it. > >>> Then I do what I'm relatively good at, and the the landscaping >>> people, etc. do what they are good at. >> Landscaping people aren't good at investing themselves in their own >> neighborhood. They are good at (if you are lucky) doing what they >> are paid to do better than those who pay them. > I would say that's fine, provided they enjoy their work. (See > adjacent remark.) > > Marcus > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
On 1/14/14, 10:26 AM, Steve Smith
wrote:
It *was* city funds, specifically for this purpose that brought in the huge yellow machines for a week to rip out the pavement, pour curbs and sidewalks and dump a hundred tons of soil and maybe even lay the sod. But it wasn't the Berkeley City council deciding that this particular parking lot would be better off being a park... how could they know that, really? They knew it when a critical mass (5%, 10%?) of the locals to that neighborhood decided to apply to their program for doing precisely this kind of project.Then I'd say that's an example of government working. It's control mechanism involved tapping the people that knew it best. Good. But for goodness sake tap the city infrastructure in making it so. It's not that that leadership hijacked the resource from the public funds, it's that they didn't waste it. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
On 01/14/2014 05:45 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> Glen writes: > >> I use it myself in choosing to donate money, rather than labor to the >> community garden. > > At some cost premium, and perhaps quality penalty, I pay money at this > place called a grocery store. Ha! I get my veggies from the store, too. I don't get any food in exchange for my donations. Plus, I don't personally donate the funds. My company does, in exchange for having our logo on the fence ... not that anyone in this neighborhood (or many others) has any need for the things at which I'm adequate. 8^) Anyway, unlike the grocery store, the community garden donates pounds of food to locals whose income is below the poverty line and to some shelters. Safeway and Albertson's do charity work, but it's that large-scale, impersonal type charity. These smaller scale donations increase the interpersonal interactions within the neighborhood, effectively mixing the well off with the homeless. 4 of the plots are actually gardened by local families below the poverty line. They have enough to pay rent at the low income housing about 1 mile away, but very little else. This gives them a chance to garden with their kids using resources provided by the neighborhood. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus wrote:
> Glen writes: > >> I use it myself in choosing to donate money, rather than labor to the >> community garden. > > At some cost premium, and perhaps quality penalty, I pay money at this > place called a grocery store. I've been there, it is convenient as all hell... and the stuff they offer up... amazing! It is clean, uniformly colored and textures, extremely rare to find a worm or even a mite. Things you couldn't grow here in a hothouse appear magically from halfway around the world. It is a magical place, I don't know (literally) what I would do without them. But I think it would be a tragedy if everyone quit growing their own, buying from local farmers, etc. > On 1/14/14, 12:34 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >> The rest of the "commons" *was* managed by taxes... this was a tiny >> oasis within it. It had a quality that could not be bought with >> taxes or any other mode. Too bad if you have never experienced >> something like that. > When people care about something, especially when they are skilled, > cooperative people that have time and motivation it shows. It's > better. On the other hand, there's the possibility that contributors > (generically speaking, not just the case you describe) just see a > `community' project as better because they have investment in it, or > because that is the context in which they see or make friends. >>> It is obviously the sensible thing to do, and because makes many >>> more big things possible. I want professionals to do the job. I >>> don't want to be sneered at when I accidentally sit on a `community' >>> swing or picnic table or whatever because I don't show up for the >>> weekend love-in. (I'm not going to show up.) >> If you read what I wrote you might recognize that roughly half the >> population in the neighborhood did *not* show up for the love in. The >> homeless who slept there and hung out mid-day did not show up... or >> the teens.. and nobody ran any of them off, nor sneered at them. >> They were all relatively welcome, and they did their part by NOT >> abusing the situation... fading out when it was time to fade perhaps? > Abuse the situation? Fade out? Norms are being asserted here. in this case. I think it is a crucial difference. > But provincialism is not my main objection. My main objection is to > the possibility of cutting professional maintenance and city planning > assuming volunteers will step in. That would be folly. > In the interest of some implied merit of `investing in my > neighborhood', which defined in some way that I'm not getting to > define, and I mostly don't care about. Virtually every "neighborhood" I have lived in as an adult is dominated by what you describe (lack of interest in establishing and maintaining community). I think it is a loss, but obviously I am in the minority. I have sought out situations which I thought might be or could be otherwise... and have settled for living relatively isolated. > My true neighborhood consists of that which is in my working memory, > over time. That may or may not include other objects or activities in > my geographic proximity. Some geographically-local infrastructure is > necessary to support those other dimensions, but otherwise is > incidental. So I expect to pay taxes to support that platform, like I > would anywhere. If the platform is falling apart (in some objective > way, not that the color of varnish on the play equipment isn't > beautiful enough), spend more on it and raise taxes to pay for it. Wow... you almost describe yourself as "a brain in a box"... I know the feeling, but I never actually left my body... and now I do enjoy inhabiting not only my whole body, but the extended body of community whereever I can find, create and groom it. >>> Then I do what I'm relatively good at, and the the landscaping >>> people, etc. do what they are good at. >> Landscaping people aren't good at investing themselves in their own >> neighborhood. They are good at (if you are lucky) doing what they >> are paid to do better than those who pay them. > I would say that's fine, provided they enjoy their work. (See > adjacent remark.) Everyone deserves to find (ok, seek) right livelihood. My point is that right livelihood can be broader and more engaged than what tends to occur when the only medium of exchange of value is the abstraction of currency. Thus my point (on deaf ears earlier?) that "she who makes the gold rules", "but only rules those who value only gold". I will continue to tend my own gardens and visit those who also value similar. I don't mind that many seek a less "messily engaged" life, our modern world seems filled with ample arbitrary messiness as it is. One approach is to minimize said mess at every turn, another is to seek to choose the messes one involves themselves in. Carry on, - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus -
They not only didn't waste it, they leveraged it well... I'd never seen anything quite as "organic" of a success. The commons need not *always* be tragic. And well intentioned, top down, fascist approaches to "the public good" needn't always inhibit the bottom up, engaged spirit of being human within a community of humans. It was a rare moment, in my experience and I'm glad you enjoyed my sharing it with you! - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 1/14/14, 11:06 AM, glen wrote:
> These smaller scale donations increase the interpersonal interactions within > the neighborhood, effectively mixing the well off with the homeless. And that helps how? To humiliate the people that need help? Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen -
Well described. I seek out fecundly complex systems over ones which in pursuit of some abstract measure of productivity or efficiency, optimize a singular or small number of properties. Your thoughtfulness about the "whole system" is always refreshing. - Steve - Steve >> Glen writes: >> >>> I use it myself in choosing to donate money, rather than labor to the >>> community garden. >> At some cost premium, and perhaps quality penalty, I pay money at this >> place called a grocery store. > Ha! I get my veggies from the store, too. I don't get any food in > exchange for my donations. Plus, I don't personally donate the funds. > My company does, in exchange for having our logo on the fence ... not > that anyone in this neighborhood (or many others) has any need for the > things at which I'm adequate. 8^) Anyway, unlike the grocery store, the > community garden donates pounds of food to locals whose income is below > the poverty line and to some shelters. Safeway and Albertson's do > charity work, but it's that large-scale, impersonal type charity. These > smaller scale donations increase the interpersonal interactions within > the neighborhood, effectively mixing the well off with the homeless. 4 > of the plots are actually gardened by local families below the poverty > line. They have enough to pay rent at the low income housing about 1 > mile away, but very little else. This gives them a chance to garden > with their kids using resources provided by the neighborhood. > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
Re: Extended sense of The Commons
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On 1/14/14, 11:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>> Abuse the situation? Fade out? Norms are being asserted here. > Norms are being acknowledged and recognized collectively, not > asserted, in this case. I think it is a crucial difference. I've been at events at churches where the organizers believe that too. Someone has power, someone doesn't. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |