p2p would be awesome if implemented properly – the trouble is that in today’s underground net economy those networks carry mostly illegal or pirated content. If the major carriers would jump on the bandwagon and implement bittorent-like technology for all or most legit content, internet traffic would greatly decrease and therefore costs would decrease as well, with everyone contributing to the transport of data. As a security professional I would raise red-flags about critical content, but those are not issues that are impossible to deal with.

To pass that down to churches, why is it not possible for several churches to acquire a building and share its resources in order to lower overhead expenses for example and avoid going in debt? Our small group here in Dayton used to meet on Sundays in a 7th Day Adventist Church – it was a win/win situation until they wanted to start meeting on Sundays as well for whatever reason.

So yes…you might be onto something with this analogy between p2p networks and church resources. Technically, if the denominational walls would come down and we all would be simply “christians” then suddenly lots of buildings would be up for “common use” and everyone would benefit to a greater extent.

The motive is still making a profit though, as you’ve said. This where arguing that the motive of capitalism is “profit at all costs” breaks down. Newman’s own clearly illustrates that the motive of (most) men is “profit at all costs”. Man, not the system creates the deficiency.

The Newman’s Own example is a better one, but it really has nothing to do with p2p sharing. The Newman’s Own example just shows how we can think differently about how we make money (commitment to quality) and how we use it (commitment to charity).

clint,
newman’s own gives away all of their profits. they’re a for-profit company without being profit at all costs. so they don’t keep and horde their money. they share it. keep in possession for a while, while radically redistributing it.

and i’m not sure how saying “screw the trickle down effect” relates to p2p sharing. its the complete opposite of the trickle down effect.

I believe that was your quote.

And I don’t get how your Newman’s Own example illustrates the p2p principle. Or was it supposed to?

Also, I know we’ve only met the one time at Nick’s wedding, but I’m going to be in the ‘ham for the first weekend of March. Nick and I are going to be planning a cooking out type thing, and if you’re available I would love to have you (and Anna, of course) there. Tanks can come too.

Get in touch with Nick, he’ll have the details.