[Noisebridge-discuss] [intellectual claptrap] Toward a theory of utilization

jim jim at systemateka.com
Sun Feb 17 17:10:07 UTC 2013


don't forget the tragedy of the commons. 


On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 02:51 -0800, Tony Longshanks LeTigre wrote:
> It's not set in stone. Hopefully it will never be set in stone. It is
> lava—flowing, changing, Protean.
> If you rarely use your car perhaps you could share it with several
> other people who rarely use their cars or wish they had a car to
> rarely use. A carshare.
> 
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:43 AM, ryan rawson <ryanobjc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>         I rarely use my car, and it has sentimental value to me. Now
>         what?
>         
>         
>         I feel like the philosophical issues here and legal theory
>         kind of screw it all up
>         
>         Sent from your iPhone
>         
>         On Feb 17, 2013, at 2:03 AM, Tony Longshanks LeTigre
>         <anthonyletigre at gmail.com> wrote:
>         
>         
>         > We hold as a precept that the Law of Use trumps property
>         > (w)rights. The Law of Use states that things (resources,
>         > space, useful objects of all sorts) should be utilized,
>         > rather than hoarded or sitting useless gathering dust. It
>         > furthermore states that things hoarded & gathering dust may
>         > be seized & used for legitimate reasons by those who need
>         > them, without any violent act of aggression being committed.
>         > This would of course not apply, or would apply less, to
>         > items of primarily sentimental (personal) value & especially
>         > to items that ARE currently being used legitimately by their
>         > owners or current possessors. If this seems like common
>         > sense, we agree with you; we only wish Common Sense were
>         > more common these days.
>         > 
>         > A l'il excerpt from something I've been working on. The word
>         > 'law' is problematic, but we haven't figured out what to
>         > replace it with yet. 'Rule' is just as bad...? We could
>         > reverse it to waL or Wal. Or coin the new word "lawk,"
>         > pronounced the same as lock. Or "theorel" (theoretical +
>         > law). Or "lege" (pronounced the same as liege) as a sort of
>         > back-formation from the adjective 'legal." I kind of like
>         > lege, as a noun for a rule of behavior that is not a law as
>         > it exists (theoretically) in an anarcho-pacifist culture
>         > without a state or criminal justice system in the form we
>         > now know it. The adjective form of lege might be 'legic.'
>         > Something that did not follow could be termed 'alegic' (as
>         > opposed to 'illegal' in current mainstream reality). Makes
>         > it more like an allergy than a crime, which seems like a
>         > promising direction—toward compassion rather than
>         > punishment.
>         > 
>         > 
>         > Tangential:
>         > <I have zero tolerance for people with no compassion.>
>         > < > = irony quotes
>         > Is satire a subset of irony? What about sarcasm? Venn
>         > diagrams, algebraic equations, to elucidate, please. A
>         > numberpoem to preserve in amber our brave new (embryonic,
>         > pre-owned, gently used) wisdom. Send for the court
>         > mathpoet....
>         > 
>         > 
>         > +11+
>         > 
>         > Things change so quickly—& not nearly enough; I have no time
>         > to feel sad about what never happened.
>         > 
>         > 
>         > 
>         > 
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>         > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>         > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>         > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You should read my diaries after I die—I talk about you a lot in
> there.
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss





More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list