Subject: Re: Chaordic Commons
From: L Jean Camp <jcamp@camail1.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:30:00 -0400

On Wednesday 10 July 2002 23:46, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Even if we agree on some usage of "optimality", it seems to me that
> you (and Ms. Gordon) have fallen prey to the fallacy of arguing from
> _one_ realization (the history that led to current reality) to general
> principle.  The neoclassicals' faults are many, but at least they long
> since recognized this "ex ante, ex post" problem.  The problem is to
> design _today_ an economic mechanism that will lead to "good" results
> over the (unforseeable) _future_.  The neoclassicals understand this.

Unfortunately they always find some interference in the market from 
government is the problem and that if the market were really empowered -  no 
problem!  That is the problem with trans-sceince, you cannot ever prove 
anything to be false.

Now the point of what I had posted was 
1. if you give the devil his due - meaning accept the value of strong 
property rights and the theory that argues that stronger property rights mean 
better results

2. then you could argue that code is an endowment good and that could make 
sense in the current shape of the market (open infrastructure, closed games)

3. but the argument that code is an experience good does not seem to work as 
well.

As pointed out this does require assuming that innovation is a good thing and 
that innovation is a measure of governance success.

It is simply another way to struggle with understanding the dual markets, and 
the fact that the market for code has lead many people to pay more to use 
Outlook, and the development of Kmail could not be so subsidized.

> Saying "let right-minded people decide" is plausible, but the
> consequences need analysis---and I don't see that analysis coming from
> you.  

Probably not this year ;->

regards,
Jean