Petros At FreeLab

Travelling storyteller. Anarchopositivist. Commoner. Homeless, jobless, moneyless. Political writer. Full time social contributor.etc...

petros@hackerspace.plhttp://freelab2014.wordpress.com

http://freelab.org.plhttp://freelab.org.pl

The

Freedom

Commons

#TFCa1

The Freedom Commons?

First attempt to describe freedom (both freedom-to and freedom-from) using the language of the commons.

The goal of this attempt is to change the perception of freedom. The most popular view considers freedom as a “rare”, rivalrous good, which we have to compete for. If we able to speak about freedom in the language of the commons, we may see the “freedom-from” as a stock variable, that we can sustain and expand in collaboration, while the “freedom-to” as the stream variable that we can share according to the commons regime.

Warning! The concept presented here is absolutely scandalous from the scholar's point of view. The only reason I am trying to elaborate this methodological abomination is the fact, that it can potentially provide an easy and efficient „cognitive pry bar” to open – and change – popular thinking about freedom.

Freedom: negative and positive

In a famous essay first published in 1958, Isaiah Berlin called these two concepts of liberty negative and positive respectively. The reason for using these labels is that in the first case liberty seems to be a mere absence of something (i.e. of obstacles, barriers, constraints or interference from others), whereas in the second case it seems to require the presence of something (i.e. of control, self-mastery, self-determination or self-realization). In Berlin's words, we use the negative concept of liberty in attempting to answer the question “What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?”, whereas we use the positive concept in attempting to answer the question “What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?”

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Relationship between them

Negative freedom

Positive freedom

Rivalrous concept of freedom

„My freedom is limited by your/others freedom” states the most popular phrase. As usual, this is literally true, at least if we accept individualistic and competitive view of the world. Such approach puts us in the eternal fight against other pursuers of freedom, being at the same time our oppressors. Naturally, we struggle to enlarge our freedom and remove obstacles by shrinking the freedom of others.

Critique of the rivalrous freedom concept

In dividualistic/rivalrous understanding of freedom puts everyone in an awkward moral siituation. To enlarge or at least protect the area of one's freedom, one has to deprive others. This is the most alienating and atomizing approach, effectively destroing all basic solidarity and causing Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes.

What is a CPR

A common-pool resource typically consists of a core resource (e.g. water or fish), which defines the stock variable, while providing a limited quantity of extractable fringe units, which defines the flow variable. While the core resource is to be protected or nurtured in order to allow for its continuous exploitation, the fringe units can be harvested or consumed.

Unlike pure public goods, common pool resources face problems of congestion or overuse, because they are subtractable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-pool_resource

The commons governance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otmrkhEFSZM

Freedom as a CPR

Core resource

Fringe units stream

The bigger negative freedom is, the more positive freedom(s) can be realised without spoiling the whole situation.

Negative freedom as a core resource

We can envision negative freedom as a shared playground – a timespace where we all can excercise our own positive freedoms. It is the potential we can use.

The cleaner (the lesser obstacles and constraints) and the bigger it is, the more space for everyone it offers.

Positive freedom as a stream of fringe units

When one decides to realise some of one's positive freedom, a piece of the playground is used for it. In the given time and period the available „stream of freedom” is defined and finite. However, it is more usable to manage it collectively and to cooperate to enlarge the whole stream, than to compete for the biggest chunk of it.

The Freedom Commons governance

„A common property regime is a particular social arrangement regulating the preservation, maintenance, and consumption of a common-pool resource.”

This is exactly the thing we need to keep the freedom commons going. Cutting the story short, such regime aims on „spreading” both benefits and burdens, related to the commons, evenly among the participants. The meaning of „evenly” is – of course – defined by the participants themselves.

Why is this narrative valuable?

● Blue Ocean strategy for freedom.● Synergy instead of competition.● Freedom supports freedom.● Evolutionary edge: in the intergroup

competition, intragroup cooperation gives the best position.

● Integral moral and social mindset.

The critique of the concept.

● Please fill in. :-)

Thank you!Thank you!

Now, let's think togetherNow, let's think together

Music: Music:

Take a chanceTake a chance

Long Road Long Road

All soundtracks Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) All soundtracks Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)

Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/