alt.energy.renewable

Fran wrote:
>
> Everybody is in the 'our' group. It's part of the commons. Some of
> 'us' are clearly spruiking some commercial interest or another. That's
> spamming, but it doesn'rt exclude spammers from being amongst 'us' or
> spoiling the commons.

So it starts by making a distinction between the 'us'.
>
> Consider a communal house. I've lived in a few. Let's say someone is
> slack cleaning up their mess in the kitchen. One might say at a house
> meeting "when will the inconsiderate stop messing up our kitchen after
> they've eaten?"

Now there is governance, a deciding body. The body decides to admonish
the 'violator'. It is a punishment.
>
> The 'our' does not exclude, but it does attack those seeking to misuse
> the commons to get private advantage.

And if the violator refuses to reform?
>
>> So it clearly implies an intent of
>> 'ownership'. To move the goal post to 'me' is irrelevant as 'me' is a
>> part of your 'our'.
>>
>>> Even going no further than the syntax, this was silly. I said
>>> nothing at all about 'law enforcement' nor implied it.
>> 'Our' implies ownership.
>
> It implies a common interest, which is not necessarily the same as
> ownership.

If there is governance, there is rule and rights to property. You need
permission to post on 'my' blog.

> What about public roads? Are they 'our roads'? Does our imply shared
> space or owned space?

The use of the road is a privilege. The road is owned by the state. The
state enforces 'proper' use. The road is not a 'common' in the old
meaning of the term.

>> Ownership requires enforcement. And that
>> clearly contradicts, 'common'. Go figure.....
>
> Not necessarily, unless one wants to include in enforcement, social
> pressure, taboo and so forth. The laws against littering are rarely
> enforced, but many people observe them anyway, especially if they
> think others are watching because they don't like the idea of
> embarrassment. There's no law about how close behind somebody one may
> stand at an ATM, but almost everybody stays at least 6 feet back
> because closer would seem threatening. People shush their kids in
> theatres, hold lift doors for people running and negotiate changes in
> laned traffic according to cultural convention. Neither rules nor
> enforcement are always necessary.

It is nice when folks cooperate and are polite. But if someone starts
stepping on toes, there will be enforcement.

> So too it is with this place. I'd like the spammers to stop. I can't
> stop them though and don't wink at coercion. I do believe that when
> the financial interests of the global polluters club are dissipated,
> that almost all of this anti-biofuel anti-AGW spamming will stop.

I wish AGW were really our biggest concern. As far as biobuels from
crops, I think it is a sham. And I think that because of what the
numbers say.

Fran,
I'd like to see a sane world. Years ago I pointed out that we would soon
use up the spare capacity of Saudi Arabia and there would be no more.
The idea was generally treated as a canard. "Limits to Growth" was held
up as evidence to my fallacy.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3551

I've talked about how our financial system was becoming very fragile and
would be incapable adjusting to the 'limit'. Here we are. The fed needs
to support the bubbles on one hand but is face with resource inflation.
An impossible conundrum.

We can talk about crop fuels and nuclear and solar. But they will be
part of a world much different than this for those who survive.

Best, Dan.