In an e-mail from March 17, 2017 Weber reminds us Heinz von Förster’s constructivist ethics which goes “always act according to the rule that the possibilities of new relationships grow”. In that very spirit he writes:
If something is a commons it enhances the productivity of everything and everyone included in it, it makes life more alive (or enhances productivity, intinsification (?), depth). It is the opposite of capitalism: it does not sacrifice living relationships but creates more of them.
About our question whether a commons has a substantive moral commitment to the "common good" beyond its own members/participants, or prior to acts of commoning and if so how is that defined and justified? In other words, why shouldn't a patent pool, the mafia or gangs be considered commoners, too? What puts their "moral purposes and method, he writes:
"This is not an ethics coming from the outside, but it comes with the very idea of commons: in order to work, individuals must grow so that through their growth the whole becomes deeper. A world as mutuality in transformation needs to be treated through mutuality as transformation. participation instead of control." And in the end, we might need a metaphysical decision. we might need to admit that there might be a vector of productivity in the cosmos, a desire for more and more intense relatedness."
# See also Commons