3 ms·
> They just made an argument for cooperative living on a small, local scale. That depends on your individual capabilities. What you're capable of producing and
by adventured 5y ago
> They just made an argument for cooperative living on a small, local scale.
That depends on your individual capabilities. What you're capable of producing and the value of that production.
If you're around the median or below, there may be an argument for that cooperative style of existence. In a modern, industrial civilization where people in the top tiers of competency are highly rewarded (and sometimes very far beyond that), it makes no sense to stick yourself in a cooperative small scale living context if you're in the top 1/3 to 1/4 or so of competency (you'd become a net charity entity, which is fine, however you'd just be better off donating a share of your surplus output in a manner of your choosing instead (which we've turned into taxation); or alternatively you'd be dragged down to the median output level or below by the cooperative tribe, in the style of crab mentality, they would not long tolerate your exceptionalism unless they get to ride you far beyond their fair share).
- AdamN 5y agoYou're aggregating capabilities pretty broadly. While it might be true that a short person might be able to walk farther and get some special thing, or a small person might be able to get into a nook and get some special thing, or a big person might be more able to carry a bunch of things back in a similar amount of time, these are complementary capabilities and no one of them is more valuable than the others independently. Even if you accept your premise that there is one dimension of capability, what is the metric, more tubers than you can eat?
- webmaven 5y ago> Even if you accept your premise that there is one dimension of capability, what is the metric, more tubers than you can eat? Probably "time spent finding 'enough' tubers to eat/share."
- swagasaurus-rex 5y agoHaving the cooperation of the tribe is the reward. A single individual has their own strength and labor, but with the cooperation of others they can accomplish much more. Earning a person's full labor means paying for their necessities - and some extra for loyalty. Without it they will always be distracted by survival.
- CardenB 5y agoYes, this small scale disregards sociology and technology that can leverage individuals and widen the gap of output.
- cestith 5y agoNobody builds Amazon or Google alone. VC-backed or publicly traded companies are putting some of the risk on others and giving them some of the rewards. Sure, what specific role you play and how much risk you take on is reflected in the level of reward when things go well. Let's not pretend Bezos pulled a retail behemoth and AWS out of his back pocket and delivered it to a waiting world. Even a corporation is a type of cooperative endeavor. We need to not confuse "cooperative" as an adjective describing people working together with "cooperative" as an ownership model. Really, though, some cooperatively owned organizations are very successful. Yes, even in the US. REI is a customer cooperative. Hy-Vee food stores are a workers' cooperative. Many rural areas have telephone, electric, gas, or other cooperatives. My parents belong to an LP gas cooperative for example. They live along a road where their side is served by a commercial electric company and across the road is served by the local electric cooperative. These specific-purpose cooperatives work well. You could, as a high earning tech person, build a fully cooperative neighborhood with other people who earn similar money. You could form an insurance pool for healthcare, unemployment, accidents, and such. Since you'd be choosing who's in your cohort, so you don't need to worry about substantial differences in earning power. Or you could do what many high-skilled people do - start a new company with a handful of equal partners, where your income and success are equalized across an entirely different organization of willing equals.