[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Vertically Integrated Permaculture Mosaic

From: Patrick Anderson
Subject: Re: Vertically Integrated Permaculture Mosaic
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:26:39 -0600

Ramana Kumar wrote:
> what happens when someone wants to
> eat all the fruit on the tree he co-owns?

The allocation is not arbitrary, it is clearly
determined by the amount of co-ownership
each co-owner has - combined with the
question as to whether he has 'paid' his
portion of the recurring costs.

In the end, after Vertical Integration is
complete, the only costs will be labor.

The other co-owners will not allow this
because he would be stealing from them.

For example:
Imagine 3 people co-own a tree.

Co-owner #1 has bought and pays the
recurring costs for 20% of the tree.

Co-owner #2 has bought and pays the
recurring costs for 30% of the tree.

Co-owner #1 has bought and pays the
recurring costs for 50% of the tree.

Each co-owner is the individual owner
of his % of the product according to
the amount he has co-ownership in the
Means of Production and if he pays
his portion of the recurring costs.

So #1 receives 20% of the fruit,
#2 receives 30%, and #3 gets 50%.

> How is your answer better than the method
> where individuals buy and sell the fruit
> (perhaps where picking from the tree entails
> buying as an individual from the group of
> which one is a member) and how is it worse?

I have already given two reasons:

1.) Since there is no purchase, the Price the
     consumer pays is exactly the Costs he paid.

2.) Since there is no purchase, there is no
     chance for external governments to tax or
     harass you for selling things they think you
     should not be selling.

Another reason is:

3.) Since you own your portion *already*, even
     before it is produced (assuming you 'pay'
     your portion of the recurring Costs), that
     co-ownership becomes a real insurance
     for that particular Product.

There are other reasons that are more difficult
to explain, but are very powerful.

For example,
Imagine you co-own a Dentist office with 1,000
other people that will likely need dental services
in the future.

Now, if you and the other patients agree to commit
some of your future labor in return for a Dentist
agreeing to service your teeth in the future, then
you will have *real* dental insurance.

One of the subtle advantages to this approach is
how it changes the Dentist's outlook on the health
of that group's teeth.

Since he will receive the benefits of those patients
working on his behalf in the orchards and the cafes
and the dairies and the factories, etc. in return for
simply maintaining their teeth, he wants their teeth
to always be perfectly healthy so he can do the
minimum work possible.

This is in stark contrast to the usual Dentist who
(secretly) wants you to have problems with your
teeth so he has a reason to work on them - for it
is only when you suffer that he is paid.

I wish I could write that more clearly.  Let me know
if you understand or not.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]