[FM Discuss] Muddling the Middleman

[Joshua Facemyer]

mark wrote:
>> Regarding whether selling something is DIY... that seems to be one of
>> the key components of DIY.
>>     
> This is where I disagree. The DIY culture that I'm part of is based on
> people doing things not for money (unless there's no option), but
> because we believe in what we're doing for it's own sake. It's based on
> volunteering, gift economies, mutual aid and a desire to make the world
> a better place.
>   

This is fine, but it doesn't mean one cannot do something for himself 
unless it does not involve money.  Even you seem to make an exception 
here - "unless there's no option".  But according to your position as 
previously stated, even if you have no alternative to earning money in 
exchange for a good or service, then you cannot be doing it for 
yourself.  Even if the good or service is exactly the same.  Or else you 
misrepresented yourself, and the whole principle of your argument is 
false anyway.
>> yes, barter is awesome. but
>> barter actually takes A LOT of work. i have actually bartered for
>> massages before. but, a websites worth of massages is A LOT of massages
>> - i was doing 90mins a week for months...  conversely, a printed book's
>> worth of massages is prob only 15 minutes of massage time...
>>     
> I think that you're misunderstanding barter if you've already set a rate
> of exchange in your mind. This is actually the point of why barter is
> better; the things exchanged have their value judged by the people
> concerned, not by "the market" which puts different values on people's
> labour according to their social status. This leads towards fewer
> opportunities for accumulation, hence less inequality.
>   

Bartering can only take place in an economy, or "market", which is 
simply a set of values placed on goods by the people involved.  Don't 
make a denotation of a term its whole definition.
>> engaging in
>> the exchange of capital is a dirty dirty business that we all are
>> complicit in, unless we are freegans, or live off the land off the grid
>> (in which case we are highly unlikely to have internet access).
>>     
> There are plenty of people living off-grid accessing the net in all
> sorts of ingenious ways. Community wireless networks, shared bandwidth,
> recycled computers, sustainable energy - all free to the thoughtful user.
>   

Not free in the ultimate sense.  Can't be.  Someone somewhere has to 
work for these things.  Freedom only makes sense alongside 
sustainability, and just using people's unwanted stuff or taking 
handouts is not sustainable.  And even then there's work in acquiring 
those things.
>> Lets be
>> realistic about this. Free Software and Free Culture is great, but not
>> just b/c it is free. Free is easy when things are perfectly reproducible
>> at "no cost" to the user, but printed books are not.  And "no cost" is a
>> misnomer. How much did you computer cost?  how much is your internet
>> connection? who is paying for the bandwidth.  someone is...
>>     
> The computer I'm typing this on was made from other people's waste that
> would otherwise have to be disposed of. The concept of cost is one that
> assumes a particular set of morals around ownership - i.e. that
> everything is someone's property and must be paid for - there are other
> views. Like the view that networks represent a Common.
>   

And someone has to work to make these things available.  That's not 
"free" (in a financial or ownership sense) in the ultimate way.  See my 
point above.

Brings an interesting point to the discussion of free software and free 
manuals.  Even though these things are made freely available, they are 
not made free of time/money/effort.  Which points toward the freedom of 
access and participation as the key elements of freedom.  Discuss.

JF