Private Property Sign

What form of Legal Property for COOPERACTIVE ASSET?

The Spirit of the Ownership of COOPERACTIVE PROPERTY is as follows:

So, all that remains is to define what a COOPERACTIVE ASSET Actor is.

A COOPERACTIVE ASSETS Actor is a person who is:

  • Participates in the creation of the COOPERACTIVE ASSET
  • Participates in the Creation of Resources produced by the COOPERACTIVE ASSET
  • Contribute to the preservation of the Production capacities of the COOPERATIVE ASSET
    • Yes, even users of Cooperactive Assets are also creators! Consider, for example, the use of a huge 3D printer that can create a house. The Printer is in itself a COOPERACTIVE ASSET. But the one who uses it also creates something, in this case his/her house.

It is obviously possible for a person to act on his 4 levels, either at once, in part or successively.

Now it is necessary to define how these people, these actors, can be grouped in a Legal structure.

To begin with, by contrast, it is necessary to set a limitation in the Legal Entities of groupings. Private Companies of Shareholders (Multiple or single) must NOT be part of a part [and even less of the totality:-) ] of a COOPERACTIVE ASSET PROPERTY.

In the end, the real and sole holders of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS PROPERTY are individuals, persons, Citizens who are Actors (See above) of the COOPERACTIVE ASSET. There is no longer any notion of Shareholders

We then find ourselves in four possible scenarios. Either:

  1. The COOPERACTIVE ASSET is a grouping of individuals, or families, linked together in the form of an agreement or contract without any other form of collective legal organization. This is most often the case of the “historical” type of Commons Property, which has existed for centuries and is part of local traditions and customs.
  2. The COOPERACTIVE ASSET is a formal collective legal organization. This organization represents the grouping of persons in the legal and declared form of an Association, Cooperative, Foundation, corresponding to the legal standards in force at the time of creation.
  3. COOPERACTIVE PROPERTIES belong to the legal entities that represent Citizens, namely in priority for the local, Communes or agglomerations of Communes, and for the National level, the State. It is currently the most practical, and most democratic, way to quickly set up COOPERACTIVE ASSET.
  4. COOPERACTIVE ASSET Property is in a new Legal Form of Ownership which is specific to it. This does not exist at the time of writing. But it must come into being as other legal forms of “companies”, in France and elsewhere, have gradually been invented. (Who will be the first country to recognize this value and its potential by creating this legal form 😉 ?) It is up to us to act!)
    1. The double KEY of understanding and structuring COOPERACTIVE ASSET is the change of perspective on the Ownership of the Means of Production and on the remuneration of the real actors in the creation of a Company’s wealth.
    2. This new specific and appropriate legal form will therefore be based on one integration and two exclusions.
      1. The integration of the fair valuation of the contributions of “OPERATORS”. Operators are those persons who, at a given time, have worked physically, intellectually or through the time spent, to create the COOPERACTIVE PROPERTY, and/or to preserve it; and/or to create the Resources produced by the COOPERACTIVE ASSET. These are the first 3 cases of the actors of a COOPERACTIVE ASSET (See above). They are the real creators of wealth in a collective action; Who are they? What are their roles?
        1. First are the Designers. They are the ones who imagine, more or less precisely, the products or services of a Company. They can be engineers, designers, marketing people and of course creators, founders, initiators of the COOPERACTIVE ASSET.
        2. Producers” who are those who create,produce, the Good or Service.
        3. The Maintainers are those who are in charge of the maintenance of the Means of Production.
        4. Sellers are those who participate in the distribution of the Product or Service. In a COOPERACTIVE ASSET, where the approach is not Capitalist or Neo-Liberal, the importance of this role should be less important.
      2. The first exclusion, as a reminder (see above) is the possibility of private ownership of the Means of Production. In a genuine [Beware of imitations and counterfeits:-) ] COOPERACTIVE ASSET, in no event may a Private Commercial for-profit and/or Shareholder-based structure hold part or, even less, all of the ownership of a COOPERACTIVE ASSET.
      3. the second exclusion is that in no case can the ownership of the Means of Production give rise to remuneration in the form of dividends from these same means of Production. The “rental” or “use” of these means of Production is based on the actual and ‘real’ costs of maintaining, and/or repaying the loans necessary to purchase these means of Production, and/or financing the future means of Production that will replace those in progress. Of course, the spirit of this ‘rent’ could be diverted by an over valuation of maintenance costs, by obscure arrangements of costs associated with loans, by interest rates outside the real level of the market. This will be part of the necessary and constant vigilance to be applied when setting up and operating each COOPERATIVE ASSET. It is a mission that each actor of COOPERACTIVE ASSET must take on to ensure that the spirit of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS is not diverted.

In addition, COOPERACTIVE ASSET may be “held” by alliances, temporary or definitive, between several of these forms of Property. Only the first, through its structure of a private contract or moral commitment (pact) is technically more difficult to integrate in combinations with other legal forms of ownership. But this is still possible.

Here is the first simplified scheme [Understand incomplete:-)] of Knowledge Models on the structuring of the means of creation/Production in a COOPERACTIVE ASSET.


Warning: If you click on a “Bubble” comment (Yellow dot), the drawing display disappears 🙁
You need to go back in the Navigator history to return to the map display. It’s a Bug, a feature!

At the time of writing this Knowledge Model, this Triptych is valid for all types of existing COOPERATIVE PROPERTY.
On the one hand because the 5 Types of “Operators” are found in all possible sectors of COOPERACTIVE ASSET.
But also because the definition of the Means of Production is, voluntarily, left very broad, because in the end all the means of Production are only types of Equipment in the broad meaning of the term. We do not need a more precise definition to date. Because this clarification would not be relevant. If we take this way, to illustrate this notion of Means of Production, 3 very different types of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, we have for a COOPERACTIVE ASSET:
– of the Natural type (Fisheries) of the means of production of the boats, nets, sheds, fish processing machines, packaging machines
– Type UBER©, mainly a car, owned by the taxi driver [We can imagine a COOPERATIVE ASSET of this type where taxis belong to the Legal Structure of the same COOPERATIVE ASSET. But let us remember that COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are there to exalt and exhort each of us by being the creator of our activities. This implies that this type of Property must be able to choose its vehicle to operate its activity within the framework of this Property. And to be fully responsible for the maintenance and longevity of this vehicle, if only for ecological reasons of durability] – of the IT type where the Means of Production are mainly Servers and PCs. Means of Production which, moreover, can be rented, at market price, without any financial arrangement of convenience, to private actors or to other COOPERACTIVE ASSETS [ 😉 ]. This is to ensure the best possible efficiency of services.

We can see that the precision on this element of the Knowledge Model does not bring any interest and that it is better to leave it at a broad and flexible level of definition.

This is also the case for the notion of CONSUMABLE which also does not need to be further clarified.

On the other hand, the precision on the identification of Operators is essential to be able to define in a fair and adapted way the “Creators” working in a COOPERATIVE ASSET. Because as the Spirit of COOPERACTIVE ASSET seeks to ensure that each participant is paid as fairly as possible, the detection of all actors is essential for the successful deployment of COOPERACTIVE ASSET.


Concentric Circles

The 4 Concentric Circles of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS – Degrees and zones of influence.

The existence and degrees of influence and impact of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS/COMMONS are on a 4 degree scale. We will use these scales and denominations to categorize the studies and proposals of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, Natural or Digital, that will be discussed on this site. This allows us to have a common vocabulary and references during the exchanges and thoughts that will be conducted.

    • By definition, all Natural COMMONS, are local. They are always anchored in a territory. It can have a radius of influence on humans living near it from a few hundred meters (Pond) to several kilometers (Lake). The geometric notion of a circle represents this sphere of influence.
    • For Production COOPERACTIVE ASSETS (shared 3D printer for example), the local area, by its proximity to the inhabitants, producers and consumers of the goods produced by these COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, is the ideal and sought-after size.
    • There may be digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS only local. But their influence is by nature limited. And their existence is less relevant than, at least, National Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS.
    • The area of influence of such Natural COMMONS is the country in which they reside, in whole or in part. The RhĂŽne is a national resource for Switzerland. But also for France. So is the Nile for Egypt and Sudan. In this level of influence, the geometric area is more a rectangle (for instance the edges of a river along its course) than a circle.
    • This is the level at which digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are beginning to have a strong impact because they potentially address all the inhabitants of a country, without limitation of use due to a particular geographical presence (Excluding the problem of Internet connection)
      • They are COOPERACTIVE ASSETS whose influence is at the size and scale of one of the 7 continents known as Africa, North America, South America (separated by the Panama Canal), Asia, Europe, Oceania and Antarctica. The 7 continents can be reduced to 6 or 5. The important thing is to understand the size and influence that COOPERACTIVE ASSETS in this category must have. The IguazĂș Falls can be considered as a Natural COMMONS of Continent. Whether it is only for South America or for an American Continent including the South and the North.
    • This is the COOPERACTIVE ASSET stage that potentially concerns all the inhabitants of the Earth. And the Planet.
    • More than in previous degrees, Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS take all their usefulness and power from this Universal level. These are all the tools and services that can be used by all the inhabitants of the Earth in a digital and virtual form, with all the advantages of the Digital. Knowledge, shared and evolving, at the service of all, diffused by the Digital is a form of Universal Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS. But we are not yet at this stage. The concept of a Library and the presence of “Text” are completely outdated in relation to the issues and needs. But this example is typically a Universal COOPERACTIVE ASSET. It should be noted that this Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSET of Knowledge is to be distinguished from a Universal COMMONS of the History of Humanity, civilizations, countries, regions, cities, families. This can be done now with the available tools and in a more classic library concept. Another possible Universal Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS is that of Inventions and Patents to be shared among all the inhabitants of the Earth.
    • Universal levels of Natural  COMMONS are of key importance to Humanity. Note that for Natural COMMONS, the size of Universal COMMONS is not identical to the size of the Planet. But they are, for different reasons, and on different levels, of vital importance to Human Civilization. We can take the example of Amazonia as a universal COMMONS, with the clichĂ©, of the Earth’s green lung. But Greenland, Antarctica and their masses of glaciers, and therefore of fresh water, can also be considered as Universal COMMONS. But rare metal nodules found, in particular, in the South Pacific, can and should be considered as Universal COMMONS. It is neither prudent nor appropriate to let them be managed solely by the Private Sector.  Also, all Oil and Gas resources outside the territorial waters of the countries must be considered as Universal COMMONS. And moreover, all Raw Materials Resources in the broadest sense of the term, present on Earth (and in space) must be considered as Universal COMMONS to be exploited for the greater good of the greatest number.

P.S. There is no Regional scale because it is not, in any case, currently relevant, in the degrees of impact and influence of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS and Natural COMMONS. A Regional Natural COMMONS does not really exist. And a digital regional is also not relevant because of its potential to move to a national impact.

Pumpjack Oil Pump Fracking Equipment Natural Resource Extraction

Limitations of the “Physical” Commons ? – There are the same limitations with Capitalism!

All the limitations attributed to the classical Commons, those based on resources, natural and physical goods, including the so-called Commons Tragedy with the over-exploitation and disappearance of these resources,[a so-called tragedy that never actually existed because the People in charge of COMMONS have (almost) always had the wisdom to exploit their COMMONS over time. And the Tragedies that have arrived in the Commons have often been due rather to natural disasters or caused upstream by Humans outside the Commons],
ARE also absolutely present in the current CAPITALISM, NEO LIBERALISM.

BUT it doesn’t bother anyone that Capitalism has such Limitations!

In an even more certain way and so many times verified, Capitalism has over exploited, plundered hundreds of millions of animals and millions of tons of natural resources, to the smallest drop or parcel, and we are not talking about Tragedy!We are only talking about the form of management of COMMONS which, by far, currently represents only a tiny portion of the management of current Resources.

This does not mean that some companies or people with a capitalist approach cannot intelligently manage resources over time either. But this is far from being the norm.

It is therefore quite extraordinary, and very amazing, that the notion of Commons is associated with any notion of Tragedy while Neo Liberalism would be exempt from this Tragedy and weakness!

For the establishment of the New Commons for a New Civilization, it is important to re-establish the Axes of Truth in COMMONS and to affirm and repeat that:
– The so-called Commons Tragedy has never existed
– That Neo Liberalism practices this Tragedy of overexploitation and loss of sight in the long and medium term, permanently and on a large scale.

Consequently, if there is a tragedy, it is right to allow Neoliberalism to over-exploit the Earth’s natural resources and/or by not equitably distributing the fruits and harvests of this over-exploitation with those who truly operate it.

IT consultant connects a network cable into switch in datacenter

Why are the Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS totally immune to the Tragedy of the Commons?

First of all, it is worth recalling what the notion of Tragedy of the Commons is, which was popularized by Heller and Eisenberg, and which is based mainly on the notion of Natural Resources.
Who says Natural Resources means exploitation and therefore, in the long term, the possibility of the end of exploitation. However, in the case of a Commons (badly exploited by a Community, an over Exploitation (Heller and Eisenberg use the term “Overuse”) leads to the disappearance of the Commons, but why this risk does not exist in the Digital Commons? or at least weakly and it can be weakly circumvented.

Because the very essence of the Digital, the possibility of copying WITHOUT depriving the original user of his ORIGINAL, carries in itself another dimension that exceeds the limits and usual structures of physical productions in the real world.
In the real world, what is given to one no longer exists for the other. The transaction of an object is at the expense of the ownership and physical possession of that object.

However, in the Digital era, one can entrust an “object”, i.e. a file (word processing, music, video) or data-information (databases in all forms of content and formats) WITHOUT the “original” being destroyed by the original owner. Thus the two possible limits of a misuse of Commons;
– A “good” exists in a single copy and if I give it to someone else I no longer have it.
– an overuse of a place of resources (Wood, pond, etc…) brings the disappearance of all “goods”
no longer exist in this New World that is the Digital.

And so all the limitations of COMMONS that existed in the Physical World are no longer present in the Digital World. The bad ratings and weaknesses of physical COMMONS are no longer possible in Numerics!
There are only the good sides of COMMONS left:
– Fair Sharing
– Accountability
– Creation-User Action for the exploitation of Commons.

Thus, in evolution, replacement, or joint existence with Capitalism, COOPERACTIVE ASSETS , the new COMMONS, can make it possible to create a New Civilization, based on the creation of and by everyone with equitable distributions (which does not mean egalitarian). This possibility is based on us and our actions. But we can build it, together, now.

Let us also add that to the specificity of the Digital and the Digital COOPERACTIVE ASSETS: the non-destruction of the original in a transfer; it is necessary to add other factors specific to the Digital as, at this moment:
– either the continuous decrease in the costs of storage equipment such as hard disks,
– or their increases in storage capacity (Note that these two capacities are not linked to the current trend (March 2019) of increasing invoicing prices by major cloud companies 🙁 but this does not reflect the structural trend of falling prices coupled with an increase in capacity).
– We will also add the increase in the speed of information transfer, which can be summarized by the Internet pipes, with the same double characteristic as for storage, increased capacity and structural cost declining in the long term..

There is therefore basically with:
– The very essence of the Digital, the infinite duplication of an “object” without loss of information
– The storage capacity increasing at constant cost
– The transmission capacity increasing at constant cost
The possibility, real and within reach of our actions, of creating, by the Digital COMMONS, a new Civilization reflecting our profound and structuring choices of life.