Mr. Byrne opines:
> A cooperative market is an oxymoron.  The point of a market is to
> obtain the highest individual benefit for a given expenditure or
> risk.

Main Entry: co.op.er.a.tion
Pronunciation: (")kO-"a-p&-'rA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the action of cooperating : common effort
2 : association of persons for common benefit

(I would go with managed competition as the oxymoron BTW.)  In a market we
have one party (made of many people) with a need (demand) and another party
(again made up of many) who can fulfill this need (supply).  These parties
associate to gain a common benefit.  What can be more cooperative than this?
The trouble is that many of our markets are not free.  You cannot sell to
certain people (certainly not at the price you want) and you can't buy from
certain people for they don't have an "official" blessing to do so.  The
trouble is not that markets are not cooperative, it's that we don't let them
be.

> If cooperation is exhibited then this is solely the coincidence
> caused by inadvertent conjunction of relative values assigned by the
> respective parties.

I wouldn't say it's coincidental, I would say it was fortunate that it got
through all of the regulation and other obstacles.

> For a cooperative to exist there must be some
> condition under which all parties agree to a solution that is
> satisfactory to all, or at least an overwhelming majority of, those
> concerned; even if this does not achieve the highest potential
> benefit for one or more of the parties. This latter state is in fact
> a description of social intercourse, where the benefit of future
> interactions mitigates against exploitive immediate gains.

I detect that your eye is tainted with what we call a market today.  In
order to find a solution that is satisfactory to all, there needs to be
choices.  Consumers need to be able to choose their producers and producers
should be able to choose their consumers.  I don't see how many will be
satisfied if we break with this stipulation.  For one good intention or
another, we part from this stipulation every day.

> The problem is that government itself then becomes a
> marketable good, where control of the regulatory regime provides a
> benefit to the owner.  This is THE problem of government, and it is
> one that the founders of the USA and the writers of the Constitution
> grappled with mightily.   It is not their fault that they didn't come
> up with a perfect system, it is quite possible that no political
> system can be devised that is not subject to subversion or perversion
> from its intent for this very reason.  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Indeed.  Who are our real guardians and who claims to be?  And it's not the
fault of the founders of the USA, it is our own ignorance of human nature.

> ...There are good and solid reasons for limiting
> excessive gain inside a society and mitigating excessive want without
> moral judgment.  How this is accomplished is immaterial, but if it
> is not done then envy and discontent will inevitably eat at the very
> fabric of society and no government coercion will be sufficient to
> stop the rot.

But as you alluded to earlier, why do you think the wolves will stop the rot
if indeed it gets them more hens?  It is much easier to generate excessive
gain with the help of government than to go it alone.  What we tend to miss
is that the discontent is a misdirection that allows the wolves greater
access.  Why would the wolves prevent the envy and discontent, they require
it.

Mark W.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *