Commons - Revision history

Terra: /* Other Resources */

2012-07-15T18:23:35Z

Other Resources

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 15 July 2012
Line 67:		Line 67:
	==Other Resources==		==Other Resources==

	[[http://www.onthecommons.org/]]		[[http://www.onthecommons.org/ OnTheCommons.org]]

	[[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57470943/texas-		[[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57470943/texas-
	judge-rules-atmosphere-air-is-**public-trust/~~<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57470943/texas-judge-rules-atmosphere-air-is-public-trust/>~~ Texas Judge Rules in favor of air as being part of The Commons]]		judge-rules-atmosphere-air-is-**public-trust/ Texas Judge Rules in favor of air as being part of The Commons]]


	[[Category:Working groups]]		[[Category:Working groups]]

Terra at 18:07, 15 July 2012

2012-07-15T18:07:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:07, 15 July 2012
Line 64:		Line 64:

	Every tool created by the human race, as a function of the greater interconnection of the observable Universe, should be considered common property. Education and information should be free, as well as the proper needs of life which are food, water, shelter, and health care. Transportation should be free, and should be considered a subject of information, because humans are social and intellectual beings operating by their complex chemical framework. The human race has the technological capacity to build such a community, but only if they are willing to become a non-warring species. --[[User:OneKarma\|OneKarma]] 04:40, 18 November 2011 (EST)		Every tool created by the human race, as a function of the greater interconnection of the observable Universe, should be considered common property. Education and information should be free, as well as the proper needs of life which are food, water, shelter, and health care. Transportation should be free, and should be considered a subject of information, because humans are social and intellectual beings operating by their complex chemical framework. The human race has the technological capacity to build such a community, but only if they are willing to become a non-warring species. --[[User:OneKarma\|OneKarma]] 04:40, 18 November 2011 (EST)

			==Other Resources==

			[[http://www.onthecommons.org/]]

			[[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57470943/texas-
			judge-rules-atmosphere-air-is-**public-trust/<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57470943/texas-judge-rules-atmosphere-air-is-public-trust/> Texas Judge Rules in favor of air as being part of The Commons]]


	[[Category:Working groups]]		[[Category:Working groups]]

Terra at 16:25, 4 June 2012

2012-06-04T16:25:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 4 June 2012
Line 20:		Line 20:
	Here's the summary posted on the Permaculture site:		Here's the summary posted on the Permaculture site:

	The governance of natural resources used by many individuals in common is an issue of increasing concern to policy analysts. Both state control and privatization of resources have been advocated, but neither the state nor the market have been uniformly successful in solving common pool resource problems.		The governance of natural resources used by many individuals in common is an issue of increasing concern to policy analysts. Both state control and privatization of resources have been advocated, but neither the state nor the market have been uniformly successful in solving common pool resource problems.

	After critiquing the foundations of policy analysis as applied to natural resources, Elinor Ostrom here provides a unique body of empirical data to explore conditions under which common pool resource problems have been satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily solved. Dr. Ostrom first describes three models most frequently used as the foundation for recommending state or market solutions.		After critiquing the foundations of policy analysis as applied to natural resources, Elinor Ostrom here provides a unique body of empirical data to explore conditions under which common pool resource problems have been satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily solved. Dr. Ostrom first describes three models most frequently used as the foundation for recommending state or market solutions.

	She then outlines theoretical and empirical alternatives to these models in order to illustrate the diversity of possible solutions. In the following chapters she uses institutional analysis to examine different ways–both successful and unsuccessful–of governing the commons. In contrast to the proposition of the tragedy of the commons argument, common pool problems sometimes are solved by voluntary organizations rather than by a coercive state. Among the cases considered are communal tenure in meadows and forests, irrigation communities and other water rights, and fisheries.		She then outlines theoretical and empirical alternatives to these models in order to illustrate the diversity of possible solutions. In the following chapters she uses institutional analysis to examine different ways–both successful and unsuccessful–of governing the commons. In contrast to the proposition of the tragedy of the commons argument, common pool problems sometimes are solved by voluntary organizations rather than by a coercive state. Among the cases considered are communal tenure in meadows and forests, irrigation communities and other water rights, and fisheries.

	[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons And Wikipedia's entry]]		[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons And Wikipedia's entry]]

Terra at 16:24, 4 June 2012

2012-06-04T16:24:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:24, 4 June 2012
Line 16:		Line 16:
	They reference: http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/361		They reference: http://www.cooperationcommons.com/node/361

			And then Elinor Ostrom's book,[[http://books.google.com/books?id=4xg6oUobMz4C&printsec=frontcover&vq=prisoners+dilmena&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action]]

			Here's the summary posted on the Permaculture site:

			The governance of natural resources used by many individuals in common is an issue of increasing concern to policy analysts. Both state control and privatization of resources have been advocated, but neither the state nor the market have been uniformly successful in solving common pool resource problems.

			After critiquing the foundations of policy analysis as applied to natural resources, Elinor Ostrom here provides a unique body of empirical data to explore conditions under which common pool resource problems have been satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily solved. Dr. Ostrom first describes three models most frequently used as the foundation for recommending state or market solutions.

			She then outlines theoretical and empirical alternatives to these models in order to illustrate the diversity of possible solutions. In the following chapters she uses institutional analysis to examine different ways–both successful and unsuccessful–of governing the commons. In contrast to the proposition of the tragedy of the commons argument, common pool problems sometimes are solved by voluntary organizations rather than by a coercive state. Among the cases considered are communal tenure in meadows and forests, irrigation communities and other water rights, and fisheries.

	[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons And Wikipedia's entry]]		[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons And Wikipedia's entry]]

Terra at 16:23, 4 June 2012

2012-06-04T16:23:00Z

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
+*
-This working group is to discuss what we, as a community, think is or should be considered "Common Property", property of "the citizens" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons:
+This working group is to discuss what we, as a community, think is or should be considered "Common Property", property of "the citizens"
+*

Terra at 15:38, 3 March 2012

2012-03-03T15:38:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:38, 3 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
			LOOKING FOR COORDINATORS FOR THIS GROUP to hold meetings and progress the conversation. Contact volunteer@occupyboston.org (terra) or mike ippolito or anyone from the SPP group where this discussion started, to get the background.

			*

	This working group is to discuss what we, as a community, think is or should be considered "Common Property", property of "the citizens" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons:		This working group is to discuss what we, as a community, think is or should be considered "Common Property", property of "the citizens" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons:

			*

	Traditionally focused on the environment, the definition has grown to include many things, has yet to be worked by Occupy Boston. Here are some ideas, please add to the list as you/we think of ideas:		Traditionally focused on the environment, the definition has grown to include many things, has yet to be worked by Occupy Boston. Here are some ideas, please add to the list as you/we think of ideas:

Terra at 16:43, 8 February 2012

2012-02-08T16:43:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:43, 8 February 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Please list~~ what ~~you~~ think should be ~~defined as~~ "Common Property", property of "the citizens" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons:		This working group is to discuss what we, as a community, think is or should be considered "Common Property", property of "the citizens" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons:

	Traditionally focused on the environment, the definition has yet to be worked by Occupy Boston. Here are some ideas:		Traditionally focused on the environment, the definition has grown to include many things, has yet to be worked by Occupy Boston. Here are some ideas, please add to the list as you/we think of ideas:

	- water<br>		- water<br>
Line 11:		Line 11:
	- playground space<br>		- playground space<br>
	- school capacity<br>		- school capacity<br>

			The overall intent of this group, when it was started was to think about how to define both the concept of Commons, as well as the individual items. For example, is "all internet access" considered common? Only "basic internet access"?

	A nice article about "Reclaiming the Commons": http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/bollier.html . This article goes into the vast array of things that can be considered "public property", and the reasons why the term "commons" is so foreign to us. We're so conditioned to think in terms of people extracting value from our communities, that we're not used to thinking about why this might be wrong.		A nice article about "Reclaiming the Commons": http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/bollier.html . This article goes into the vast array of things that can be considered "public property", and the reasons why the term "commons" is so foreign to us. We're so conditioned to think in terms of people extracting value from our communities, that we're not used to thinking about why this might be wrong.

	Writings from SPP group [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/WG/Strategies/Ideas/Three_Tier_Vision (source)]]		Writings from SPP group [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/WG/Strategies/Ideas/Three_Tier_Vision (source)]]

			GOALS:

	THE COMMONS / ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY		THE COMMONS / ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

Terra at 16:40, 8 February 2012

2012-02-08T16:40:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 8 February 2012
Line 12:		Line 12:
	- school capacity<br>		- school capacity<br>

	A nice article about "Reclaiming the Commons": http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/bollier.html		A nice article about "Reclaiming the Commons": http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/bollier.html . This article goes into the vast array of things that can be considered "public property", and the reasons why the term "commons" is so foreign to us. We're so conditioned to think in terms of people extracting value from our communities, that we're not used to thinking about why this might be wrong.

	Writings from SPP group [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/WG/Strategies/Ideas/Three_Tier_Vision (source)]]		Writings from SPP group [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/WG/Strategies/Ideas/Three_Tier_Vision (source)]]

Terra at 16:39, 8 February 2012

2012-02-08T16:39:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:39, 8 February 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	- playground space<br>		- playground space<br>
	- school capacity<br>		- school capacity<br>

			A nice article about "Reclaiming the Commons": http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/bollier.html

	Writings from SPP group [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/WG/Strategies/Ideas/Three_Tier_Vision (source)]]		Writings from SPP group [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/WG/Strategies/Ideas/Three_Tier_Vision (source)]]

Terra at 16:38, 8 February 2012

2012-02-08T16:38:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 8 February 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Please list what you think should be defined as "Common Property", property of "the citizens":		Please list what you think should be defined as "Common Property", property of "the citizens" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_commons:

			Traditionally focused on the environment, the definition has yet to be worked by Occupy Boston. Here are some ideas:

	- water<br>		- water<br>