Ok. There’s a lot to cover here and honestly catching up on all these posts brings up a lot of stuff for me. You said that “dissent (civil or otherwise) is highly welcome” so, well, I hope you were being genuine about that.
Sorry to have to be so blunt but I’ve digested your document and honestly this reads like a cancer script.
“Property appropriation protocol” is a really terrible way of viewing the world. Outdated logics of neoliberalism underscored with objectifying male ownership logic. Nice.
That may seem unfairly judgemental, but, noting terrible language-
man is a territorial beast; how would he live
man desires clean air to breathe
Mark that territory as his own
Announce his subjective personal tolerance
one steals a property and declares it his own
a salary proportional to the contribution he makes
each of whom has his own vision for the company’s future
I was talking about the common man
man is inherently evil
positive externalities in our case; for instance, the benefits that a man enjoys from the passing-by of a beautiful woman…; haha! My favourite example!
I could go on, but I tired of copy-pasting from your manifesto. The gendered language throughout this and related threads are windows into a worldview that is as narrow and self-interested as it is problematic. Honestly it creates a pretty stark context for everything you’re proposing.
You don’t even realise the negative externalities present in the objectification of women. Maybe it is not so harmless, the discomfort / fear / self-protection that women have to feel from being ogled by men like you. And to add more layers to the context, all this from someone with the handle “The A Man”.
As for your favourite example, I don’t find that necessary either, it’s that kind of stuff that also deters people from joining in.
as others have said. Your chauvinism does not belong here.
Interestingly, I note that more or less the only time you use the word “her” in this whole paper is in reference to animals-
Of an animal, being territorial means defending his/her territory
or in tired hetero-normative assertions made about “a mother out in the wild”.
Something to reflect on. Or not 
humans have infinite wants
resources within which to fulfil those wants
what you’re talking about is micro-privatization
AI, sensors, robots, p2p social apps for everything (including employment and human-labor)
completely revolutionize the production sector
it doesn’t make any economical sense
Basically, these are all just business models
Free-markets […] thereby making use of insurmountable knowledge […] hence “maximizing utility for everyone”
if you truely were, and were rational enough to see how, you’d realize that only a free-market capitalistic system does the greatest good to the common man.
To echo Tibi, the filter through which you’re continually perceiving this space appears to be one of individualism, privatisation and commodification. You don’t get it. You don’t even get that wants and needs can be met without consuming resources. Threads quickly lead to cross-talk because you’re not really listening to anybody except yourself.
Is there some other configuration I’m unaware of? Surprise me, then.
Can you wrap it up in one brief paragraph, please?
It’s called a commons. Your refusal to understand the distinction is born of this filter I’m referring to. If you won’t take the time to sit with Ostrom and understand concepts like “stewardship” and “responsibility” and “relational richness” and “abundance through responsible sharing” as separate from “privatisation” - if you continue to force-fit this Capitalist lens to everything and erase the differences - then you’re not going to pass ‘Go’.
Asking others to do the work for you when you seem reluctant to absorb the information provided to you is pure entitlement. You keep tagging others, saying you’re “waiting for their reply”, well I’m afraid nobody owes you any replies or owes you their time to try to educate you on things you don’t wish to be educated on.
I don’t see any reason for a full-blown “commons-based-peer-production” even here
what I regard as silly
That’s fine. What I regard as silly is entitled and pointless bickering like that you’ve expressed in your lead-in thread- to what end? Debunk something that you’re just beginning to understand? All you’ve done is make it clear your unwillingness to integrate new information.
Hourglass Economics, are that pay-what-you-want business model and tokenized real-world assets (such as art, musical pieces, and even scientific theories) can internalize those positive-externalities that exist in some industries
The commons-approach is gonna be less efficient than a, let’s say, pay-what-you-want or tokenized NFT approach
And to the privatization critiques, trust me or not
Cool man, you do you. I’ll choose not, and will be far away regarding your project and its cultural underpinnings as a catastrophic failure state in which people are reduced to commodities and the world is designed in service to the chauvinistic desires of cis men.
I’ll be keeping a copy of these threads and your manifesto for my own research. It is a fascinating example of how the predatory and entitled logics of Colonialism and Patriarchy manifest at personal, interpersonal and systemic layers of being and in ownership over women’s bodies, shared spaces and the natural environment.
That’s enough time spent on this now. Bye.
