Green Party Discussion About Commons - Revision history

Joanna herlihy at 22:52, 28 August 2012

2012-08-28T22:52:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 28 August 2012
Line 16:		Line 16:


	Joanna: Definition of commons varies. The English term refers to land held in common, e.g. not private property,no? And meaning has evolved. My understanding of commons includes Earth and all its systems--regardless of property rights--and human inventions. Does :strong commons" mean a broad definition of what is included in commons?		Joanna: Definition of commons varies. The English term refers to land held in common, e.g. not private property, no? And meaning has evolved. My understanding of commons includes Earth and all its systems--regardless of property rights--and human culture including inventions. Does :strong commons" mean a broad definition of what is included in commons? Or strong protection?

	'Must distinguish between what is included in the 'commons' and governing, protecting, oversight of the commons. This is an area where sometimes local is better because people are working together a a community. In other cases, ~~the highest~~ level (e.~~g. world) governance is appropriate~~.		'Must distinguish between what is included in the 'commons' and governing, protecting, oversight of the commons. This is an area where sometimes local is better because people are working together as a community. In other cases, world level is more effective.

			"Rights" are a legal strategy.

Joanna herlihy at 19:05, 28 August 2012

2012-08-28T19:05:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:05, 28 August 2012
Line 17:		Line 17:

	Joanna: Definition of commons varies. The English term refers to land held in common, e.g. not private property,no? And meaning has evolved. My understanding of commons includes Earth and all its systems--regardless of property rights--and human inventions. Does :strong commons" mean a broad definition of what is included in commons?		Joanna: Definition of commons varies. The English term refers to land held in common, e.g. not private property,no? And meaning has evolved. My understanding of commons includes Earth and all its systems--regardless of property rights--and human inventions. Does :strong commons" mean a broad definition of what is included in commons?

			'Must distinguish between what is included in the 'commons' and governing, protecting, oversight of the commons. This is an area where sometimes local is better because people are working together a a community. In other cases, the highest level (e.g. world) governance is appropriate.

Joanna herlihy at 04:24, 28 August 2012

2012-08-28T04:24:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:24, 28 August 2012
Line 14:		Line 14:

	The bottom line is that until we establish a strong commons, to include basic human rights to air, water, healthy food, education, justice, health, etc... then we have no rights.		The bottom line is that until we establish a strong commons, to include basic human rights to air, water, healthy food, education, justice, health, etc... then we have no rights.


			Joanna: Definition of commons varies. The English term refers to land held in common, e.g. not private property,no? And meaning has evolved. My understanding of commons includes Earth and all its systems--regardless of property rights--and human inventions. Does :strong commons" mean a broad definition of what is included in commons?

Terra at 21:34, 27 August 2012

2012-08-27T21:34:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 27 August 2012
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Terra: Some people in Occupy Boston started working on [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Commons See OB Commons work]] our definition for "The Commmons"]]. Then found this work done by the[[http://permaculture.tv/governing-the-commons-the-evolution-of-institutions-for-collective-action-by-elinor-ostrom/ Permaculture]] folks. I, for one, thought this work by Permaculture was so good, that I stopped concentrating on doing the definition. But if I got back into it again, if my memory serves, I'd want to include currency and other financial systems/assets and various other "obscure" things like the right to create derivatives, and other entrapments. Anyway, I don't want to keep doing this research in a vacuum. The people in Boston that I was working with on this went away. I can probably organize a new Commons group, to include some people from the public banking group and the environment and human rights groups. But maybe after the election. In the meantime, just referencing the word "commons" may be enough. From what I understand...the term refers to "all that we hold dear", where the definition is in flux. Like now that the judge ruled that clean air is "commons", it holds...til someone successful challenges it.		Terra: Some people in Occupy Boston started working on [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Commons See OB Commons work]] our definition for "The Commmons"]]. Then found this work done by the[[http://permaculture.tv/governing-the-commons-the-evolution-of-institutions-for-collective-action-by-elinor-ostrom/ Permaculture]] folks. I, for one, thought this work by Permaculture was so good, that I stopped concentrating on doing the definition. But if I got back into it again, if my memory serves, I'd want to include currency and other financial systems/assets and various other "obscure" things like the right to create derivatives, and other entrapments. Anyway, I don't want to keep doing this research in a vacuum. The people in Boston that I was working with on this went away. I can probably organize a new Commons group, to include some people from the public banking group and the environment and human rights groups. But maybe after the election. In the meantime, just referencing the word "commons" may be enough. From what I understand...the term refers to "all that we hold dear", where the definition is in flux. Like now that the judge ruled that clean air is "commons", it holds...til someone successful challenges it.

			==THE BOTTOM LINE==

			The bottom line is that until we establish a strong commons, to include basic human rights to air, water, healthy food, education, justice, health, etc... then we have no rights.

Terra at 21:32, 27 August 2012

2012-08-27T21:32:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:32, 27 August 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The issue, as I see it, is that we don't have any real rights. Yeah, OK, we have some rights under the Constitution. But those rights have been subjugated by Supreme Court case law (voted upon by ~~appointed~~ people who were appointed by electoral ~~authority, that~~ authority provided by illegal elections) ~~to the "rights to commerce".~~		The issue, as I see it, is that we don't have any real rights. Yeah, OK, we have some rights under the Constitution. But those rights have been subjugated by Supreme Court case law to the "rights to commerce". (notably that these cases were voted upon by people who were appointed by electoral authority provided by illegal elections)

	This is not just once, but thousands of times. That is considered "settled case law", because no one has challenged these rulings. So it becomes "legal" that profit subjugated people/environment.		This is not just once, but thousands of times. That is considered "settled case law", because no one has challenged these rulings. So it becomes "legal" that profit subjugated people/environment.

Terra: Created page with "The issue, as I see it, is that we don't have any real rights. Yeah, OK, we have some rights under the Constitution. But those rights have been subjugated by Supreme Court ca..."

2012-08-27T21:30:59Z

Created page with "The issue, as I see it, is that we don't have any real rights. Yeah, OK, we have some rights under the Constitution. But those rights have been subjugated by Supreme Court ca..."

New page

The issue, as I see it, is that we don't have any real rights. Yeah, OK, we have some rights under the Constitution. But those rights have been subjugated by Supreme Court case law (voted upon by appointed people who were appointed by electoral authority, that authority provided by illegal elections) to the "rights to commerce".

This is not just once, but thousands of times. That is considered "settled case law", because no one has challenged these rulings. So it becomes "legal" that profit subjugated people/environment.

Anyway, this is not the first time this has happened.

Recently, a Texas judge ruled that "Clean Air is a Right", or something like that. In her ruling, she referenced Roman law relative to "the commons".

The concept of The Commons is to establish what is "public property"...that which we all share in and that which can not be co-opted.

Terra: Some people in Occupy Boston started working on [[http://wiki.occupyboston.org/wiki/Commons See OB Commons work]] our definition for "The Commmons"]]. Then found this work done by the[[http://permaculture.tv/governing-the-commons-the-evolution-of-institutions-for-collective-action-by-elinor-ostrom/ Permaculture]] folks. I, for one, thought this work by Permaculture was so good, that I stopped concentrating on doing the definition. But if I got back into it again, if my memory serves, I'd want to include currency and other financial systems/assets and various other "obscure" things like the right to create derivatives, and other entrapments. Anyway, I don't want to keep doing this research in a vacuum. The people in Boston that I was working with on this went away. I can probably organize a new Commons group, to include some people from the public banking group and the environment and human rights groups. But maybe after the election. In the meantime, just referencing the word "commons" may be enough. From what I understand...the term refers to "all that we hold dear", where the definition is in flux. Like now that the judge ruled that clean air is "commons", it holds...til someone successful challenges it.