[FM Discuss] Muddling the Middleman

[Joshua Facemyer]

mark wrote:
>> This is fine, but it doesn't mean one cannot do something for himself
>> unless it does not involve money.
>>     
>
> I'm sorry but your use of a triple negative is confusing. Please can you
> rephrase that?
>   

It wouldn't make sense without the triple negative.  They cancel each 
other out.  Parse it.

>> 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.
>>     
>
> I don't follow you here, sorry.
>   

You had stated that the principles of DIY require complete abstraction 
from a currency-based economy, and later you stated that DIY could take 
place within a currency based economy if necessary.  That's a 
contradiction.  Just pointing it out.  You can't have your cake and eat 
it too.
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Please can you explain the distinction you make here between denotation
> and definition? Sorry if I'm being thick.
>   

Sorry, I'm being imprecise.  I had meant "connotation", meaning that 
"market", though often thought of by people in a capitalist economy as 
the abstract bankers' market and the wretchedness which often goes with 
it, simply means the value that people put on goods for the purpose of 
trade.  A market is necessary for any trade, otherwise trade couldn't 
take place.  At least not intelligent trade.
>   
>> Not free in the ultimate sense.  Can't be.
>>     
>
> Wow, you know the ultimate definition of freedom! I've been looking for
> this for years! Tell us!
>   

Well, actually, it's been given to us, but many refuse to accept it.  
But that's a completely different discussion :)

What I've referred to is acquiring something without giving anything in 
exchange.  My point is that everything requires some sort of effort or 
payment, in particular if it is going to be a sustainable framework by 
which something is acquired.  So you can't just write off the rest of 
the world as doing something lesser than you are, because what you're 
doing is only possible because of what other people have done, the same 
things which you are disdaining.  If you are not claiming you're doing 
something better, however, then it's still, at least, not a sustainable 
route for the entire population to take.

For example, there have got to be new computers made (at some point) in 
order for you to get old computers.  This requires some sort of effort 
and material on someone's part.  This is not free.  This is why the 
"free" in FLOSS puts more emphasis on the freedom of accessibility and 
participation than it does on the cost.

Getting back to the main point, however...everything one acquires 
requires some form of "payment".  Just because one uses a currency to 
represent the value of an object does not make the effort he has put 
into procuring the object anything different than "the effort he has put 
into procuring the object".  Therefore, if he has done it himself, he 
has done it himself.  Your efforts to diminish the value of good work 
simply because it's not taking place in an economic model of which you 
approve are puerile.  I don't mean to make a personal assault on you, I 
just don't see what's so difficult to comprehend about that point.
>> 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.
>>     
>
> It is sustainable as long as there are surpluses. When consumerism
> collapses and there are no more surpluses, we'll have a whole new set of
> challenges to deal with, but I guess that's some way off in the future yet.
>   

That's really a parasitic way of looking at the world.  It is, in my 
mind, far worse than many of the abuses that go along with consumerism.  
You're sucking the fat off of the pig while you're complaining about how 
fat the pig is.

Wouldn't it be better to work for sustainability than to leech off of 
the failures of consumerism?
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Sure, tell us about ultimate freedom. I think you know something I don't.
>
> Mark
>   

Maybe I do :)  I think I've made my points about freedom insofar far as 
they are relevant to the discussion.  The issue isn't really about 
freedom itself, it's about what makes a model DIY.  I would even say the 
DIY discussion is semantic, except that I think you've made some really 
crazy points that don't compute, so it goes beyond semantics into 
logic.  Otherwise I wouldn't even be arguing a point that doesn't seem 
likely to be taken.  But it's in my nature to eradicate antilogic.

JF