<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: "Punishment"? Re: Centralization</title></head><body> <div>At 2:56 AM +0000 6/7/02, Justin Schwartz wrote:</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Why is it so hard to imagine an institutional</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>structure where producers do market research, and if people don't like the stuff they stop making it?</blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Because I don't believe that people will act in any particular way without institutional incentives and disincentives to encourage the behavior in question. That's because I am such an individualist. It is complete and irresponsible idealism to suggest that we strive towards organizing a sysatem around no institutional incentives at all.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Now now, quit that. A universal right to economic security does not necessitate or even suggest the absence of any institutional incentives. For a start, recognition of effort and achievement is its own reward. For example:</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote>"What sets open source software apart from commercial software is the fact</blockquote> <blockquote>that it's free, in both the political and the economic sense. If you want</blockquote> <blockquote>to use a commercial product such as Windows XP or Mac OS X you have to pay</blockquote> <blockquote>a fee and agree to abide by a licence that stops you from modifying or</blockquote> <blockquote>sharing the software. But if you want to run Linux or another open source</blockquote> <blockquote>package, you can do so without paying a penny--although several companies</blockquote> <blockquote>will sell you the software bundled with support services. You can also</blockquote> <blockquote>modify the software in any way you choose, copy it and share it without</blockquote> <blockquote>restrictions.</blockquote> <blockquote><br></blockquote> <blockquote>This freedom acts as an open invitation--some say</blockquote> <blockquote>challenge--to its users to make improvements. As a result, thousands of</blockquote> <blockquote>volunteers are constantly working on Linux, adding new features and</blockquote> <blockquote>winkling out bugs. Their contributions are reviewed by a panel and the best</blockquote> <blockquote>ones are added to Linux. For programmers, the kudos of a successful</blockquote> <blockquote>contribution is its own reward. The result is a stable, powerful system</blockquote> <blockquote>that adapts rapidly to technological change."</blockquote> <blockquote><br></blockquote> <blockquote>The Great Giveaway http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/copyleft/copyleftart.jsp <blockquote><br></blockquote> </blockquote> <div>Another example of this widespread human phenomenon is the "old-economy" voluntary sector in present capitalist society. Millions of people voluntarily contributing their labour to projects they see as worthwhile. Just one example among many, in Australia most rural fire brigades are composed entirely of unpaid volunteers. They do it for the satisfaction of doing it and because it needs to be done. This is not aberrant behaviour, it is normal behaviour.</div> <div><br></div> <div>It really is time for you to acknowledge that money alone, or the threat of starvation and homelessness, is far from the only form of "incentive".</div> <div><br></div> <div>This is not some utopian theory, it is actually existing fact.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Bill Bartlett</div> <div>Bracknell Tas</div> </body> </html>