Thoughts?

@johnrhoads Absolutely! But we shouldn't underestimate the difficulty of coordinating, well, anything. Power is organization, and it's hard. I don't think we've paid enough attention to how to make democracy work at scale, but i'd love to be pointed to the resources that prove i'm wrong. Worker cooperatives and platform cooperatives are so exciting in part because we'll have to figure that out, and then there's little limit to what we can do.

Lots of good commentary going on with this thread. Hope we can keep this moving.

To be specific: Wealth inequality is an unnatural condition encouraging monopoly. Laws that favor aggregations of people serving capital over aggregations of people serving people is another unnatural condition encouraging much that is horrible, including monopoly.

Glad to see we both have some trepidation of traditional economics Though I will say the examples you gave are of a different character since they generally refer to a resource which needs extraction and distribution whereas the share economy issues are generally fixed resources or services I am not sure if we are clarifying or just digging in heels at this point I don't like the idea of calling these networks natural monopolies especially since it seems to imply those at the top should naturally have arrived to that position

Monopolies are a logical extension to the rules of capitalism. Capitalism dictates that consolidation of competition and the process of elimination be the guiding principle toward some delusional Nirvana where there can only be one authority and one beneficiary (i.e. tyranny). It's pure narcissism and vanity and is very polarized into one leader and many followers. However, I think humans aspire to be more than followers of an absolute top-down authority. Capitalism enshrines the idea of one absolute top-down authority and abhors decentralization and distributed (democratic) authority - although it didn't start off that way. It really does resemble the desire of an egotistical person to be exalted and worshiped by all while in a perpetual state of orgasm. From King to capitalist, it's the same except for one step removed from absolutism but as we see now is probably just as absolutist. Nothing has changed.

I see the idea of democracy as relatively incompatible with capitalism now although it was the force that instituted capitalism. IMO democracy became highlighted when feudalism gave way to capitalism. Authority through democracy became decentralized one step beyond feudalism but not quite to the individual level (potential for tyranny still exists). Even though capitalism started off with this democratic mind set, it has veered quite heavily away form it and back to a feudalistic style of centralized authority and hence tyranny. Socialism, however mislabeled, miscalculated or misconceived in the past, will soon highlight yet another step removed from centralized authority and will make democracy whole down to the individual level - finally. If done properly, the neo-socialism will avoid the pitfall of regressing back to an absolutist and centralized authority like we saw with capitalism.

Obviously I agree with that point of view, though I do get what Benjamin is saying that the extent of the network in Airbnb, and the others is a critical part of its success I think the disagreement with Benjamin and I is mostly semantic. One possible alternative would be for communities to hold the information for Airbnb hosts in that given community, and as long as their were reciprocal agreements with other communities you could still have a comprehensive network but with decentralized control I know there are those who have given various names for having elite control of the network removed but i cannot think of them at the moment

It's looking like two separate things. One being the principle of strength in numbers (law of averages?). Two people can dig a ditch must faster than one and so on. The other thing being how decisions are made as to the ditch digging. At best, the ditch would be dug based on "best practices" or most efficient means. The point is decisions do not always have to be made every single time an event takes place (free will is not always necessary). Once an agreed procedure is codified, the decision has been made in a kind of perpetuity only to be changed as circumstances or consensus change. In this way, the ditch diggers are no more than paint-by-numbers artists where maybe one has really studied the procedure more than the others and is delegated to facilitate or guide the digging. In the AirBNB example, the workers would all get together and decide what "best practices" would be and then codify it. Thereafter, the system runs without much supervision as long as people are well versed in how the system came to be and why. It is important to teach people the history of this system so that it can be intelligently perpetuated. The network is only as good and efficient as its underlying system which in the end is always fairer when controlled by all its members democratically. It is true a system can be good and efficient if a single authority has deep wisdom but this wisdom is most often guaranteed when reached collectively. The risk of tyranny becomes less and less the more democracy is utilized. I believe people are not stupid and will likely make good decisions if taught or informed properly.