Table of Contents
Answers to criticism
This page is an attempt to answer questions and provide a record of feedback to criticism proponents for the concept and wiki contributors have come across.
Criticism: The Open Access Economy relies too much on communication
Answer: What is it about the proposal that requires too much communication? If resources (or at least our basic needs) are met by making them easier to access through pre-programmed resource checkout systems containing listings of our needs across our communities, surely there would be less communication due to less lengthy deal-making and negotiation strategies required, no? Especially if computers are used to manage the resources and their accessibility. Starting with access to knowledge first made free and of where to go to procure goods and services, then maybe leading up to physical resources shared later on as our communities evolve, get connected, and become more trusting.
If you're referring to the need to communicate to form trust, that communication can happen in a multitude of ways not just through negotiating with the individual themselves if you wish to procure a resource from them. We now understand that educating ourselves about stewardship and reputation systems can help us to understand others better based on other people's past interactions with them before engaging with them.
That saves a lot of time communicating with someone that might otherwise not be suitable for meeting your needs.
Question: The transition seems too confusing. Why are there so many different transition plans? You're saying there is more than one way to get to the same point?
Answer: Essentially yes. It wouldn't be too arrogant to say that all of us have different ideas and different ways to reach different people at different stages of the transition. But you probably could rethink this and see each idea presented as like a toolbox of tools to help us arrive at the same point, or at least a better place than where we are now, not just as competing ideas.
Some ideas presented may present a concept that can be applied to another concept we like more or are more familiar with, but then leave behind the rest. Just like how one tool can be better at performing a task than another, but knowing you might still need the other tools for other tasks at different times, you choose to keep the other tools around. This adaptable or modular thinking is very similar to what happens in the world of open-source software. Where one part of software can be openly applied to another software, in turn creating a new or different piece of software, perhaps maybe better suited to performing certain tasks.
Though there will inevitably be a hint of Darwinism and natural selection to whichever ideas survive, that we should guess, is the point. Whittling it down till we find the tools that work for us and in meeting our needs, and leaving behind those that don't work or lack effectiveness in achieving a fairer economy and a better society.
Criticism: The open access economy depends on technology and willingness to exist but people won’t do that without an incentive
Answer: Saying this would be a massive insult to all the people who volunteer every day, whether it be working in charities, foodbanks, or working in open source development of computer software, often doing so without payment or thought of monetary reward. These people do these things because they know of the good that it creates in society as a result of doing so. Whether it be in knowing a group of people you’ve served at a foodbank isn’t going to go hungry that week, or a bug you just fixed has solved someone’s niggling problem in computer software they’ve been using for quite a while.
These 'micro-OAEs' happen all the time every day. But because they happen most often discreetly and in pockets in an intuitive, informal, or casual manner, we often tend to forget and pass up that these kinds of benevolent acts happen which leads to a bias towards one's own concept of what they think an open access economy is or what it achieves.
Where we do agree is that more formal transactions will help us to understand where resources are going. Or at least a record of a gift-share or sharing activity in the form of a receipt. And we do wish more economic proposals would record their transactions so we can understand progress made in a more transparent manner.
Criticism: Open access economy advocates cannot keep their promises that store shelves will be restocked
Answer: How do you think foodbanks are always restocked? The fact that they often are shows you how much people care even without payment for such actions. Restocking levels of course can vary from foodbank to foodbank. In general outside of what foodbanks share with us in the papers and on social media, we do not have the exact data on the typical numbers of items they have on a supply and demand basis or on/as an average, since not all foodbanks use an open method of sharing accounting data of their resources.
But generally people are kind enough to support those in their local communities through such initiatives. Large numbers of people also donate to charity shops all of the time. Donations that might have otherwise gone to waste. Therefore it isn’t out of the question that once people have more time and resource availability, along with improved process management of requesting and obtaining needed resources, more will donate to such causes.
Criticism/Question: It will not be possible to run an alternative system alongside of the open access economy. Say for example an open access economy is system A and i wish to live in system B, how can i do that when i must play by the rules of system A?
Answer: It’s very easy for us to say with a degree of arrogance that the individual that wishes to live in system B is living in the past as system A has everything those in system B could want and need etc, which is a classic response of groups that think they know everything or come across with such attitude. But things always improve. Thus allowing system B to co-exist really should be of vital importance because those living in system B may have some experiences they wish to bring over or invite those living in system A to learn about.
Luckily we know about open source, and we know about modular thinking, and if we find one method works better than another stemming from either system, either can learn from that and apply it to their systems.
Criticism/Question: The open access economy wants to take everything away from me and everybody else and share it with everybody. How is that sustainable? Who would agree to that?
Answer: Yes agreed, who would agree to that in their right mind? Most would be understandably upset by such a prospect and fear of the consequences. If you were an electrical engineer or running an energy company, would you let just anybody into your electricity cabinets or handle their maintenance?
It is important to understand that the open access economy doesn’t want to take something away from you that’s already yours. You start where you are including from what you already own in title. And the decision to make something of yours open access to another, whether that be land or another resource, will still be yours alone as its operating steward. But you are the one who is responsible for that resource including the outcomes of who or how you let others use it. Keep that in mind.
Criticism/Question: Why do you still have people owning and running things as stewards? Aren't leaders a bad idea? Look what they're doing already with societal and resource mismanagement. Enough with leaders already! My boss already annoys me enough at work
The important thing to understand is that we always need people to look after and take care of things. Some misconceive that the robots will do that and all the menial work, but until we are confident of their safety and robustness we will still need people watching over the resource management.
And then there is property. Beyond the methods of production, property is a touchy word to some surrounding new economics. If i own 10 houses, that's 9 less for you and other people. But not everyone wants to look after that many houses. Not all want the responsibility. Some do.
We imagine those that do will have an interest and possibly a skillset in doing so. From housing people, to making sure they have business or workspaces.
If you put people in charge of things, they tend to take care of things. But if you put more than one person in charge of the same thing as in a shared title, taking care of that thing can become diluted and mismanaged as others can start to no longer bother with putting in as much effort as those that do care in looking after it. Thus why single-owner property ownership may have a bigger future as more realise this for better accountability.
Note: If your question hasn't been answered here, it is important to understand that no contributor owes you an answer. Contributions made to this wiki and the movement it stands for are just that, contributions. Ideas in time can be proven wrong. We change our viewpoints when we arrive at new results. At that time, our answers might change or be added to. An economic change this significant requires continuous learning, patience, and understanding. Please show respect for the contributions made here.