Response to article about Roma

Responding to an article describing how the nomadic Roma, or gypsies, of France were being systematically evicted from the various campsites they had developed around Paris and some other French cities due to those camp sites being hazardous (lacking water, and sanitation, etc), I made the following suggestion:

"Perhaps they should form a non-profit cooperative that can collect funds then buy and maintain small plots of land near major cities.

Like KOA campgrounds in the US they could provide working toilets, showers, fresh water, and both camping and RV sites for use.

And as an added benefit they could be at least partially funded by sharing use with outsiders, including allowing the land to be used for the occasional festival or fair. Both could be hosted by the Roma as well, providing non-begging income and an opportunity to sell handmade wares.... a way to show the Roma are not just a burden on the greater society."

Click here for the original article.

in response to an article on Grist (click to read article)

on the subject of sustainability, and the need for our global societies values to be altered to not only allow for but encourage sustainability: for sustainable practices to be 'built in' to our every behavior. it seems to me that it's best to simply reverse the system that has allowed our values to become so skewed in the first place. it was capitalist ideals, greed, that drove the wedge between man and the earth, and it will be philanthropical ideals that will bring man back into natures fold.

cooperate, not for profit--as a corporation does--but to promote sustainability and equality in every aspect of life. build non-profit cooperative schools, car manufacturers, insurance providers, hospitals, automotive service centers, recycling plants, solar power plants, fisheries, farms, building developers, music labels, film producers and distributors, employment agencies, et cetera.

any necessary business can succeed at providing better products, at a lower overall cost, while also providing higher quality employment to more people, as a non-profit cooperative than as a greedy for-profit corporation. the only question is whether to build them as member operated or employee operated organizations; and that will most often differ in accordance to the customer/members contact with the org. a farm is best run by those who participate in it's functions personally, while a grocery needs the input from it's members to determine what products it should buy, and from where.

also, like the for-profit business model today which uses the International Monetary Fund to promote the use of it's model globally, a Non-Profit or Cooperative Monetary Fund can be created with the pool of excess funds from the overall cooperative and non-profit community, which can then be used to fund the global development of yet more cooperatives: buying and converting for-profits when there isn't room in a current marketplace for what could be a very beneficial cooperative.

this, by the way, was how communism was supposed to work. only with communism a government was used as a middle man; with the job of acquiring property, businesses, and banks, and then redistributing ownership over these things to the people... however the greed and selfishness of those in government lead them to hold onto that which they acquired in order to promote and maintain their positions of wealth and power. the model i've described does not allow for such foolishness to occur; so long as all cooperatives are limited in size, and allowed to function as an individual entities; while still maintaining the support of the larger community.

billboards? manipulative or deceptive advertisements or commercials? copyrights? most business law? most gov regulation and oversight? unemployment? high crime rates? excessive drug use? excessive sales of antidepressants? high suicide rates? terrorism? these things have no place in a sustainable society.

The Basics

In order to promote the overall well-being of humanity I suggest the mass adoption of Small Cooperative Non-Profit Organizations throughout the business world; not merely as schools, hospitals, credit unions, grocery stores, and basic service providers (power, water, waste), but also as goods manufacturers, food producers, insurance providers, cell phone carriers, internet service providers, automobile manufacturers and maintenance centers, et cetera.

These would be Sustainable and Self-Regulating Democratic Organizations who's goal would be merely to provide quality services, products, and employment, and not to earn a profit. Having these as their sole purpose alleviates the need for individual governments to spend time and money regulating businesses in order to maintain their level of accountability: A non-profit organization's business charter, when properly designed, should account for it's overall responsible regulation and transparency, as well as it's requirement for intentional disbandment upon it's failure or it's lack of necessity.

Although one might contest that there are plenty of examples of successful credit unions and cooperative grocers, there are still few examples of successful non-profit goods manufacturers and entertainment or telecommunications focused service providers. I believe that if this were to change, the world over, surely there would be a steep incline in the health and happiness of people everywhere.

Considering that the goal of these organizations would be to develop and produce only the best quality goods, while also providing quality employment to individuals, not only would decent wages and full benefits obviously be made available to all employees, but customers would be able to take pride in paying the price of the goods; since they would know they were promoting the health and well-being of not only themselves but also the individuals that produced the goods. This is in contrast to today's market where general shoppers must navigate complex pricing schemes--carefully designed to confuse and manipulate the customers simply to promote the excessive wealth of only a few individuals--and who regularly find themselves doubting the value of the goods they purchase.

Also one of the most important reasons for intentionally adopting the Non-Profit Cooperative business model worldwide and throughout all industries is its innate ability to easily design environmentally responsible as well as socially responsible organizations. Aside from the obvious benefits, this would aid in greatly reducing the need for governmental regulation in regards to green house gas emissions and general pollution. The widespread use of these organizations could also aid in resolving one of the topics most highly debated currently within world politics. I'm fairly sure that had Cooperative Non-Profits been at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution what is now known as Climate Change could have been easily abated by the direct action of the communities who suffered most from the pollution produced: those who lived and worked near and within the factory centers.

Producing International Cooperation

[the following is an idea submitted to USAID.gov during an Open Government event, where a single website was developed to play host to the encouragement of participation in government by allowing the submission of ideas from the general public to many different government agencies, as well as the ability for participants to vote and comment on the ideas submitted. please click here to vote!]

why not use US funds to promote international well-being by aiding in the development of Small Self-Regulating Cooperative Non-Profit Organizations; such as schools, hospitals, credit unions, coop grocery stores, coop goods manufacturers, coop service providers (power, water, waste), insurance providers, et cetera...

promoting the development of Sustainable and Self-Regulating Democratic Organizations who's goal is merely to provide quality services, products, and employment, and not to earn a profit, alleviates the need for USAID and individual governments to worry about and subsequently spend more money and energy regulating businesses in order to maintain their level of accountability. a non-profit organization's business charter, when properly designed, should account for it's overall responsible regulation and transparency.

and it's important to note that, although there are plenty of examples of successful credit unions and cooperative grocers, there are few examples of successful non-profit goods manufacturers. if this were to change, the world over, surely there would be a steep incline in the health and happiness of people everywhere.

considering that the goal of these organizations would be to develop and produce only the best quality goods, while also providing quality employment to individuals, not only would decent wages and full benefits obviously be made available to all employees, but customers would be able to take pride in paying the price of the goods; since they would know they were promoting the health and well-being of not only themselves but also the individuals that produced the goods. this is in contrast to today's shoppers who must navigate complex pricing schemes--carefully designed to confuse and manipulate the customers simply to promote the excessive wealth of only a few individuals--and who regularly find themselves doubting the value of the goods they purchase.

and of course, because these Non-Profit Cooperative Organizations would be designed to be socially responsible as well as environmentally responsible they would be capable of greatly reducing the need for governmental regulation in regards to green house gas emissions and general pollution. one of the topics most highly debated currently within world politics--climate change--could be easily abated by the direct action of the communities who suffer most from the pollution that has generally taken place around factory centers: those who live and work there.

profit = no right to protest

from slashdot:

"The Federal Court has ordered an Australian distributor to pay Nintendo over half a million dollars for selling the R4 mod chip, which allows users to circumvent technology protection measures in Nintendo's DS consoles. The distributor, RSJ IT Solutions, has been ordered to cease selling the chip through its gadgetgear.com.au site and any other sites it controls, as well as paying Nintendo $520,000 in damages."

[this device allows a person to store well over 300 DS games on one chip, which limits the need to even sell the games via cartridges. which could dramatically limit the cost of distribution, both financially and environmentally. R4 like devices also allow a person to create or use open source software to do things that the DS manufacturers did not intend, like run linux or ebook reader software.]

Click here to see the original Slashdot post.

my response to the slashdot post:

i think, the issue is quite clear.... so long as the original developer and distributor 'of anything' makes a profit off their work they have no room to argue that someone else has infringed on their rights. basically, if they can stay in business, they ought to just shut up!

the whole idea of copyrights wasn't to give an industry ultimate control over their own ability to maximize profits, especially not indefinitely. and anyone who whines cause they think they 'should' be making more money, after making millions, should be taken out and put down.

seriously, how petty must the corporate world get before things change? does Nintendo make games to make a profit, or does it make games so that people can enjoy them? if the earlier is true their right to do business should be revoked! making money may be required to stay in business, but making that the goal sets up a business to eventually act excessively selfish, greedy, or downright irresponsible--at the cost of actual human beings.

case and point: they sued a smaller, nobody, company because the technology they produced was used for piracy--or could be, but they still refuse to provide adequate means for people to do the awesome things that device legally allowed a user to do.

in fact, i've copied and given away ALL of my DVDs, CDs, and video games/systems. i believe wholeheartedly that maintaining a large collection of disks, cartridges, and entertainment systems is beyond irresponsible in a time where the construction and shipment of those items consumes so many better used non-renewable resources. the tonnage of plastic used to make those things, and now sitting on a shelf unused or in a land fill somewhere, is beyond unbelievable. let's not even consider the environmental cost of the energy needed to make them or the transportation fuel needed to get them to my home. i now have one hard drive, and one back up drive, where all my media is stored--though i do often copy some files to other portable devices; like my phone which functions as an MP3 player, eBook reader, handheld gaming device, etc. and my computer can emulate just about any gaming system.

furthermore, if the government had any sense at all, it would not only throw out any case brought against a company that allowed for the mass digital storage of otherwise individually sold items, but it would also sue the pants off the original developers for refusing to provide the same service. or simple provide the technology to the public itself via the development of a non-governmental non-profit organization, simply in the hopes of limiting the future distribution of waste to their already overfilling landfills. they could even use the money from the lawsuit to pay for the development of the non-profit manufacturer.