Oof, I mis-wrote then. Yes, lots of people believe a commons needs to be developed. Where I seem to be alone is in the deduction that a distinct fourth sector will emerge, taking its place alongside the existing three sectors (our civil-society or some would say social or voluntary sector, public sector, and private sector), developing as distinct an identity and purpose as they currently have, and that it will probably be a commons sector structured for care-centric matters: e.g., the ones I listed.
There are other fourth-sector ideas/proposals around: e.g., Sabeti, Bauwens, Raworth. But the way I read them, they are mostly about new pro-commons less-capitalist approaches for social entrepreneurs who favor business-type collectives and cooperatives. Fine with me, but the result is not a true distinct fourth sector (from TIMN view), but economics-oriented appendages to the existing three sectors, or a kind of philosophical meta-sector atop the existing three.
What I think TIMN says is that +N will result in a distinct separate independent sector, with its own language; and best I can deduce is that it will house the care-centric actors and activities that the existing sectors can no longer handle well: health, education, welfare, the environment, and related insurance entitites. That's where I seem to be alone. For whenever I ask, what actors and activities may be most suited to forming this next sector (realm, sub-system), the answers I receive, if I even receive an answer, tend to be along the lines of anyone and anything who wants to be pro-commons. That's not what TIMN implies, assuming I'm right about TIMN (which I'm far from finished with).
I hope the above is clearer. If not, ask more. And thanks for asking me to clarify in the first place.
David, I don't think you mis-wrote. I most likely mis-read. Need to ponder this a bit. I tend to view the arising of +N as an emergent new domain that transcends and includes (but reconfigures) the other preceding domains. Perhaps that is not consistent with how you view TIMN.
Oof, I mis-wrote then. Yes, lots of people believe a commons needs to be developed. Where I seem to be alone is in the deduction that a distinct fourth sector will emerge, taking its place alongside the existing three sectors (our civil-society or some would say social or voluntary sector, public sector, and private sector), developing as distinct an identity and purpose as they currently have, and that it will probably be a commons sector structured for care-centric matters: e.g., the ones I listed.
There are other fourth-sector ideas/proposals around: e.g., Sabeti, Bauwens, Raworth. But the way I read them, they are mostly about new pro-commons less-capitalist approaches for social entrepreneurs who favor business-type collectives and cooperatives. Fine with me, but the result is not a true distinct fourth sector (from TIMN view), but economics-oriented appendages to the existing three sectors, or a kind of philosophical meta-sector atop the existing three.
What I think TIMN says is that +N will result in a distinct separate independent sector, with its own language; and best I can deduce is that it will house the care-centric actors and activities that the existing sectors can no longer handle well: health, education, welfare, the environment, and related insurance entitites. That's where I seem to be alone. For whenever I ask, what actors and activities may be most suited to forming this next sector (realm, sub-system), the answers I receive, if I even receive an answer, tend to be along the lines of anyone and anything who wants to be pro-commons. That's not what TIMN implies, assuming I'm right about TIMN (which I'm far from finished with).
I hope the above is clearer. If not, ask more. And thanks for asking me to clarify in the first place.
David, I don't think you mis-wrote. I most likely mis-read. Need to ponder this a bit. I tend to view the arising of +N as an emergent new domain that transcends and includes (but reconfigures) the other preceding domains. Perhaps that is not consistent with how you view TIMN.
Good point to raise. I put long reply up top.