In Denmark we have a long history of cooperative retail stores, so a development like this is not too surprising sering as there have been quite a few examples of stores getting bought by the community here as well. I think it is a good move in general since there is not going to be the same profit over everything mentality in those stores since it is owned by people who buys stuff there.
There are a lot of co-ops in the US too, but that’s not quite what this is. I’m this case the town government bought and runs the store. A co-op might be better, but you may need a certain population threshold to make that work.
For sufficiently representative government, I think that government-owned and cooperatively-owned are synonymous. Especially for small towns, the overhead of having two separate organizations, each of which represents all people in the town, would be quite large.
They definitely are not. A government owned enterprise is many steps removed from voters, and will be run by bureaucrats. This creates an internal constituency and an opportunity for several kinds of graft. A co-op involves your direct participation in operations, and probably an opportunity to be directly involved in decision making depending on the size of the co-op.
Maybe for a really small co-op, but beyond 100 to 200 folks, any co-op will have the exact same internal dynamics as city hall, just on a smaller scale.
Not really. A co-op can’t levy a tax on your home. A co-op can’t pass laws. A co-op doesn’t have a police force. Co-ops also have to comply with generally accepted accounting principles. Municipalities also have the backstop of the larger state if they become insolvent.
I shop at a couple of co-ops, and they're excellent.
Ideally I'd like to chat with a lawyer knowledgeable about co-op formation to create an open template for a version designed to leverage a long term lease from a nonprofit land trust. The structure could be mixed use to include housing; resident owned, appreciation moderated, with support from the trust for affordability.
I've seen a few organizations that might help in a generic way, but lawyers haven't been interested in the 'open' aspect.
I think a populating of the around 1000 of the city and the sorrunding area is maybe enough though it is likely harder to compete in these times where everyone has cars and such.
(THere is also recent examples here where it is not really a cooperative but a group of citizens getting together and raising money to buy the store and rent it out to a grocer. For example in Halvrimmen https://nordjyske.dk/nyheder/jammerbugt/borgere-koeber-koebm..., where they have made a LTD that owns the store)
I find it strange that citizens of democratic countries agree that democracy in politics is necessary but democracy in economics is not...
By that I mean humans are born into this world with one vote for every election in politics but in economics people are born with zero votes and must rely on the benevolence of their parents.
There is no minimum access to pollution rights, natural resources, land and perhaps money granted to every citizen equally the moment they are born. It doesn't have to be an insane amount that people can live off, just enough to feel like you are not born as an illegal alien on this planet.
People vote each time they choose buy a good or a service. Isn't it democracy if you have the freedom to choose to whom you give your hard earned money (what is left after taxes)?
If you proposed that people could buy extra votes in elections, at say 100$ a pop, virtually everyone would call it an affront to democracy, as rightly so. Yet it is precisely what happened when it comes to governance of joint-stock companies.
For one, a vote is a right. It costs you nothing to vote. A vote has a single purpose.
Buying an item is not the same. You have a fixed amount of money and there is an opportunity cost to buying anything. Moreover, you need to buy certain items to survive.
If you are poor you are not in a position where you have a choice, you have to buy the cheapest items that you need to survive. If you are rich you have more than enough resources to survive, to buy the items you actually want, and more beyond.
When you are forced to vote in a certain way because you cannot afford not to, that is not democracy.
It's an analogy. There's also an opportunity cost to a vote, insofar as casting a vote for A means you can not cast a vote for B. You also have a fixed amount of votes, 1.
> If you are poor you are not in a position where you have a choice, you have to buy the cheapest items that you need to survive
This is a really dull and tedious way of looking at things. Poor people make choices based on preference all of the time. Especially because food in the US is dirt cheap in historical terms. Sure you aren't buying organic grass fed meat, but you can pick from a wide range of cheap foods. Are your choices more limited, sure, but you still have choices.
It's just a shitty democracy. Funnily enough, especially since Citizens United (but even way before ofc), that's basically how our government works too.
People say this, but I think you probably aren't clear on what the Citizens United decision meant. It boiled down to overturning a law that prevented groups of people from spending more than a certain dollar value on anything that could be considered campaigning. The law was so broad that it was used against a Michael Moore documentary, and was obviously unconstitutional.
Also the idea that you can just reliably buy congresspeople by spending money on ads is a farce.
A cursory look at Wikipedia would tell you that Citizens United overturned a Supreme Court decision from 1990 called Austin v. Michigan.
In other words it did not boil down to "overturning a law" but created a new conservative doctrine that would apply to any law.
If it's not possible to buy politicians with campaign ads you shouldn't have a problem with a law making it illegal to buy politicans with campaign ads, no?
Yet for some reason you are spreading falsehoods about Citizens United, claiming a highly contested 5 to 4 decision turned on what was "obviously unconstitutional" (if it was obvious shouldn't it have been a unanimous decision?) almost like you want people to believe the case's ruling was sounder than it was and are afraid of it being overturned.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. "Buying politicans is my right as an American but also doesn't work so stay calm and don't panic over the fact I am buying politicians"
> I think you probably aren't clear on what the Citizens United decision meant
Should I take this as a prompt to assume random crap about you?
CU drastically increased spending by outside, untracked groups, on the ridiculous premise that money is not a corrupting influence in politics. It was the end of meaningful campaign finance regulations.
> Also the idea that you can just reliably buy congresspeople by spending money on ads is a farce.
Why are companies and groups spending so much then, including spending on both sides of many races?
I think you're mixing concepts... It's a free market economy if you can choose who to buy from; it's a democracy if the citizens choose the rules and laws, which may prohibit you from buying certain things.
This is even more important due to the fact that the amount of power in the political sphere keeps shrinking, while the power in the economic sphere keeps growing.
The amount of real power politicians truly have is laughable compared to the state of affairs even 50 or 60 years ago. If you think about it there is almost no decision of substance that can be made without deference to economic power (in the person of un-elected, in-accountable actors), i.e. the amount of power that political actors have is very small, compared to say pre-wwii times or the couple of decades afterwards. Historically this has never been the case, to this extent.
I don't think that's necessarily a widespread agreement. Even within the bounds of basic centrist liberalism, people believe that sufficiently concentrated wealth can rival the power of governments, and deserve to be limited in the way that governments are.
The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the claim to the legitimate use of violence. That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state, or an entity acting in the effective capacity of a state, whatever it happens to call itself.
Absent this, one of three conditions exist;
1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state.
2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power).
3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition The State.
The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy
Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California Press. p. 54.
The misleading and abbreviated form that's frequently found online seems to have originated with Rothbard in the 1960s, and was further popularised by Nozick in the 1970s. It's now falsely accepted as a truth when in fact it is a gross misrepresentation and obscures the core principles Weber advanced.
No government has an absolute monopoly on violence. Here in the US, some thug could steal my bike and likely get away with it. Much of the literature using that definition includes coercion as a form of violence, and no government fully covers economic coercion.
If the number of entities in a society with discretion over violence is not equal to 1, what is the optimal number?
The literature normally refers to an "absolute monopoly on legitimate violence," since the state has no practical way to prevent all incidental acts of non-state violence.
Sure, that makes sense. I still wonder what an oligopoly on legitimate violence looks like. The closest thing I can think of is the sweatshop system, where each sweatshop has coercive power over its workers, legitimized by the idea that the worker chose to join a particular sweatshop.
Consider that term "violence". It means to violate. To cross the line into what's private and holy. Not just your body, but your right to speak, your right to property, all that stuff. Which is exactly what we're talking about here. The legal right to cross the line.
It's kinda like having write permission on a file.
