💾 Archived View for dimension.sh › ~textmonger › 2023-06-20-01-brassy-tacky.gmi captured on 2023-07-22 at 16:26:58. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-07-10)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2023-06-20 CircaDian: Bootstrapping
> A few posts ago I wrote that ads on Gemini “could > never happen”. > => 2023-06-17-gemini-vs-ads.gmi Gemini vs Ads > Not because of the technical barriers—although > as I outlined, those are formidable—but for some > “non-technical reasons” that I didn’t go into at > the time. > Let’s do it.
I really appreciated both posts!
2023-06-20 JeanG3nie: Re: Richard Stallman
> Everywhere you look these days you see that what used to > be held in common trust is being carved up and divided > among those who don't really need any more.
The "common trust" that allegedly "used to be" was either an illusion, or effectively an illusion for being a brief break in the "divid[ing] among".
> What if, when a house became abandoned, rather than > ownership reverting to a bank, it was held in common > trust?
How could that possibly happen in the context of beings that always put themselves first?
> What if an enterprising person who decided to fix that > house up and live in it was just allowed to assume > ownership of it?
"Just allowed"? By beings that always put themselves first? Surely you jest!
> Why does this seem like a ridiculous concept?
Because you posit it in the context of beings that always put themselves first.
> The bank has no use for houses. Banks don't need to go > home after their long workday and play in the yard with > their dog, people do. Wouldn't the world be such a better > place if this sort of thing was encouraged? There would > be less abandoned houses becoming a problem for their > towns, homelessness would have an obvious solution and > people might not be so willing to sell their precious > time just so that they could have a basic human need > (shelter).
All that mighty fine reasoning is irrelevant to beings that always put themselves first.
> Our society in general values ownership too highly.
It's what beings that always put themselves first do.
> In the US where I'm from we are perhaps the worst. I like > the idea of reverting "property" back to the commons more > and more, whether that be intellectual property or even > inheritance. Obviously, if someone is currently using > a resource then that should be respected, but when they > die, or if they abandon it's stewardship, then that thing > should revert to the commons, to be held until someone > else needs it. In the case of knowledge, the idea of > property and ownership is outdated and dangerous and > should probably not apply at all beyond attribution.
Who amongst us is going to become selfless enough to show other selves sufficient path to selflessness that the things you're talking about *might* be possible? I mean, one fellow allegedly died on a cross to accomplish such, and most modern bastions of putting themselves first mock - if not despise - that guy.
Grok?