Talk:THE COMMONS

• commons is a way to 'copy write' stuff and 'open source' is commonly held soft ware ... see also, some medicines and windmills ...
• Boston is full of Victorian easements ... the common paths, as well as town greens (grazing land) ...
• Commons is the concept of certain things being "common property"...that which can NOT be taken for private property. It runs back to Roman law and before, Old Testament, MiddleEastern/Asian law, etc, and is now becoming a huge part of the environmental battle and battles for heritage protection, etc. If we can establish a "strong commons" that includes things like "the eco-system" or things more obscure things like "healthcare" or "a healthy food supply", what happens is that we establish our "right" to things. And then if people want to make profit on them, they can be "granted" a permit for whatever, which we can revoke, if we're not happy. So if someone pollutes the water, they have "taken" our water...that "taking" has more rights legally than someone simply releasing some pollutants against a regulation. Our current system of law is based on colonies being carved out and given away to governments who were/are put in place to enforce the rights of those colonial corporations to extract resources. Colonists took over the country and gave away the "right to commerce". That is illegal, by the way, in a country with a strong commons, and many consider the entire US to be an illegal government, accordingly. Latin American countries are falling over themselves adopting Commons language, by the way...to keep the capitalists at bay. Anyway, count on me to fill in that part. I'll probably link it to the wiki page that we started working on Commons on. I thought I'd already installed that link. I'll check again.
• Ah, commons.... "Land" and "money" are the only two common goods. You may want to read my "The economics of jubilation' that you can find at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=856905
• Legally and financially speaking, I claim that we could reduce a LOT of the cost of government if we had a strong commons.  That's because a lot of our government is caught in the middle...individuals knowing that we can't pollute the water, for example, but with an overall mission of the government to protect capitalism..."the right to commerce".  We have regulators whose job it is to monitor pollution and stop it when it gets to be "too much".  Instead, if we defined commons to be "any pollution is too much", then the person creating the pollution would have to fix it before it reached the "commons".  Period.  So instead of having a system where the activist has its "box of allowable activism", where we are regulated into a box of allowable actions so we don't interfere with commerce, we define commerce as a privilege IF the commons are not degraded.  Of course, we still have to have regulators.  But I believe their job will be easier, because they will actually have a mission to protect "the commons" instead of having to do this dance between what they know in their hearts is right and their job assignment to protect commerce. I believe that even the majority of fiscal conservatives will agree with this, because with a clearer commons which protects the basics and allows local communities to "say no" to multinationals, which helps local/regional business, which is our economic base, and that which most of them rely on for their income.  Right now, a large number of conservatives are fighting to protect their local communities from the onslaught of polluters, huge developers who are ruining their schools, etc.  This issue is dividing their camp, IMHO.  By defining what we want to protect...what is our right, we are in a better position to achieve our ends.