Human hands with wheat ears. Crop protection and care concept

What are COMMONS ?

Usually, COMMONS are defined as Cultural and Natural resources accessible to all members of a Society.

COMMONS can be of different kinds. The most Known and Historical COMMONS are COMMONS based on NATURE (See this Post). But in reality they can now also be Economical, Social and now even Digital!

This why it’s better to talk now about COOPERACTIVE ASSETS.

COOPERACTIVE ASSET is the name of the new COMMONS, the ones that we can now create in this Digital and Global Age. But behind this new word, this denomination, we have to keep the very key principles of the originators of the COOPERACTIVE ASSETS.

The most important are the Governance and sharing outcomes mechanisms.

Indeed, Commons, COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are defined by a Community of users, whatever its size is (local, national, continental, World), which self-governs the resource and the sharing of its outcomes (whatever its form, natural, digital, social) through institutions that it creates and control.

At least, these mechanisms and spirit are now immediately needed for making a new evolution to our Civilization.

And hopefully a whole new Civilization!

Discover all the power of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS on Alpharis.

Group of people around the world

Why are COOPERACTIVE ASSETS the best of the New Civilization?

Of course, most of the time, once the first notions on the subject have been integrated, we quickly understand the relevance of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS for the Collective part. Whether for contributions to our City, Region, Country in general or for the actors concerned in the sense of the collective, all persons, groups, the Community.

But we must NOT reduce the impact of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS to this aspect of the Collective alone!
This would suggest that COOPERACTIVE ASSETS do not profoundly influence the lives of all of us as individuals.

Currently, for the best to set up and build, COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are the most appropriate and relevant form for the creation of a New Civilization. Because the most appropriate economic and social organizations for one era are not the same as those for another, which will itself have its own context and developments to put in place. It just so happens that at this particular moment, at this particular crossroads of evolutions, or possible regression [In case of doubt about this eventuality, refresh your News feeder!], COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are the most relevant way.

Because not only do they allow a better Collective, but also (and I am even trying, or even forcing to write) and above all, they allow the best for individuals in their own lives. The strength of the Collective is of no interest if it does not lead to a better for each individual. That is the very purpose of this Collective. It only makes sense if it permits to set up, for each individual, the Best of him/herself. Everyone has its own better specific. Some may call it career objectives, personal development, life choices, others Destiny. It doesn’t matter what the word means or is spelled as long as the reality of the individual’s achievement of the best is there. And¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS¬†are the best way to allow and facilitate this personal accomplishment. And this in three ways:

First, everything that is a Commons, shared services; whether at the local, National or Universal level; is an additional layer of resources, well-being, easiness, civilizational evolution for each and every one of us. Whether it is the invention of electricity, or even older, of tap water (which, in countries that are equipped with it, we no longer perceive the “magic” that allows us to have abundant water in our homes with a simple gesture), all inventions (Automobile, refrigerator, vacuum cleaner, washing machine, television, computer, telephones, Internet etc……) passed into the Public Domain (in the sense that no Company has a monopoly on the manufacture of the type of object or service) allow an improvement in the life of all human beings who use them. Whether it is time saved, less physical energy spent, more efficiency, tasks that could not be done before, and so on….¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS,¬†COMMONS of this type have made it possible to improve Human Civilization in general. And likewise all the norms of safety, social minimums (Pensions, paid leave, medical insurance, …) are also forms of¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS and¬†COMMONS (Even if we have not yet understood much that these Norms, Laws, decrees, are indeed COMMONS of Civilization).

It is clear from these examples that the individual impacts of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS are real and relevant. But they are made possible through the benefits that come from the Collective, from COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, from which everyone benefits. But the presence and existence of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS will also, in the long term (because it has to be implemented), allow each individual to participate differently in the Goods and Services Production process.

Because secondly, in addition to the individual benefits of¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, in a world where they prevail over other kind of organizations, there are opportunities for each individual to realize his or her full creative potential. The existence of¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS¬†or the possibility of creating them will make it possible for each of us to better express and live our creative potential by allowing a better compensation (Fair and equitable) for our actions. Indeed, if the individual carries on his activity within the framework of a¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS,¬†he does not carry it out for the (too often alone) benefit of one or more shareholders. But for his own sake. In the context of a¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, a¬†new COMMONS, the benefits of a person’s activities are proportional to his or her efforts and creative abilities. Let us take the example of a fishing area dedicated in a¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS¬†with very precise operating rules, in particular to ensure the renewal of natural resources by setting maximum catch limits. Any individual with a fishing concession in this¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSET¬†will be able, depending on his/her work, to obtain a share of the resources, and the income that goes with it, in proportion to his efforts. If s/he fishes a little, s/he will get few fishes and therefore a little income from the sale. If the individual fishes moderately, it will get an average income. If it fishes as much as possible of what is allowed, without exceeding the quota (remember that one of the first objectives of Physical COMMONS is to manage natural resources over time), it obtains the maximum possible income.

{One could argue that this limitation of income, due to the preservation of natural resources, would be an obstacle to maximizing possible income per individual.} Let’s say that the maximum fish quota is 100 Units per year (no matter what the unit, 1 fish, 1 quintal, 1 ton) and that a talented, self-motivated fisherman reaches this quota in 3 months. Wouldn’t be there then, by the very form of¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS, a limitation on income per person? A type of organization that would limit genius and individual work capacity? To this 3 answers.

1) Isn’t it better to focus on the sustainability of a Resource rather than its hasty plundering in the short term? As we have seen before, this is precisely one of¬†
COOPERACTIVE ASSETS‘ objectives. Some behaviors are antagonistic to this functioning and must therefore be blocked.

2) Moderate, or at least regulated, disparities (because what does it mean to be moderate? a differential of 1 to 3, 1 to 10?) in income between the parties involved is it not desirable in terms of justice, ethics and social issues?

3) The contribution of 
COOPERACTIVE ASSETS¬†is decisive in the argumentation of this question. If the individual in question feels frustrated or limited by not having the maximum earnings he or she thinks he or she can have in a¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSET¬†because of the intrinsic regulations present there, nothing prevents this individual from participating in MORE than one Commons ūüôā ! Whether it is other Natural COMMONS, such as forests or mining operations. Or COMMONS of other types such as Digital¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS. We will give an example of this type of¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS¬†below. Thus, if its strength, ability, genius, allows him to quickly reach a quota in a Natural¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSET¬†nothing will prevent him from exercising its talent in another one or in several others.

So the Commons allow each individual to express their creative abilities and to reap the benefits.


To illustrate this point, we will take two other examples; the first will be dedicated to Vegans who do not feel concerned by the example of the fishing area. Let’s take a COMMONS which is a territory made up of different fields. Each of the surfaces, on the basis of a call for tenders, is allocated to a Concessionaire (Alone or in association, cooperative), for a sufficient number of years (5, 10 or others, to be seen according to each context) which must also respect precise specifications. In particular in terms of soil and plant treatment. Thus this Territory is a COMMONS whose overall surface area does not change. But whose distribution (such lot, such field), can vary in the different calls for tenders. The first call for tenders in year 0 will have 10 lots, each of which will be made up of 2 fields of 1 hectare. The second call for tenders, in year +5, will still have 10 lots but some will have a single field of one hectare and others 2, and some 3. It is also possible to modify the surface area of the fields (reduce, aggregate,…) between each call for tenders. When it comes to COMMONS, it is easy to see that you can have a lot of flexibility and diversity. In any case, on the basis of the lots allocated, the Concessionaire will then be able to work with the intensity it wants on its Concession to obtain, or not, the maximum possible. And it can also claim to have other lots to earn even more income from these activities.

COMMONS are therefore not obstacles to maximization

1) If some are surprised at the lack of land ownership by the Farmers who would exercise in this Type of COOPERACTIVE ASSETS and at the relevance of this mode of operation, let them take the time to learn about the Tragedy (on all levels, including first, at a human level, by the number of suicides in recent years among Farmers) of Land Transfer in the Peasants (At least in France.) The reason why this is so surprising is the fact that there has been an increase in the number of people killed over the past several years, which has been a result of this tragedy in many countries in France and the world. But it seems to be a global phenomenon. But for different reasons such as the purchase of the Lands by Multinationals or Countries).

2) In the context of such an 
COOPERACTIVE ASSETS¬†it is also possible to consider an auction system at Tibor LISKA’s way. But that is not the main point of the article.

The second example will be a Digital¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSET. Let’s imagine, which is desirable, a Spotify or a Deezer COMMONS. On the one hand, the artists in¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS¬†would certainly receive a higher remuneration than they currently have. But it is also very clear that, unlike Physical COMMONS, this remuneration has no limit or cap in a Digital COMMONS. Not only, the more successful the artist will be for a song, the more she or he will receive. But he or she could also make other songs and then other albums. Then Lives performances. And/or songs with other artists ….¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS¬†are therefore not a limitation on individual income. But on the contrary, they can be maximized in relation to the current yield between Work and Wage.

The third form is the Social form. As a result of the fact that we are now moving to a new economic and social form, we are de facto going beyond the main redistribution of benefits that was organized in the form of Capitalist dividends. There is, either no longer any dividends or no longer any separation between the “Workers” and the shareholders. We are in another situation where the individual’s potential and responsibility can be better expressed. With¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS¬†we change the type and forms of the mechanism between work-creation and output. More fundamentally, some of the mechanisms, of gears, are even being eliminated. We’re no longer in direct contact.

These are the first elements in this first version of the article (May 2019) to demonstrate the positive impact of¬†COOPERACTIVE ASSETS. Whether at the level of the Group as well as at the level of individuality. They’re the best match between the two!

Creator of Commons


List (uncomplete) of UNIVERSAL Natural COMMONS

In order to better familiarize yourself with the notion of COMMONS, and in particular of COMMONS called Universal and Natural, sometimes called Physical COMMONS, here is a list, which is not intended to be exhaustive, of some examples of these types of COMMONS.
Let’s just start by reminding you that:

  1. Natural COMMONS are all COMMONS that are based on a natural resource, abundant or not, on Earth or elsewhere.
  2. The notion of Universal means, either a Common Good present throughout the Earth (Air for example). Or a Common Good whose benefits of exploitation must be shared by all. (i.e Gold Mine underwater outside the Territorial Waters)

Here is therefore, on the basis of these two criteria, a beginning of the list of Universal Physical COMMONS:
– Air
– Water
– All Raw Mineral Materials in the broad sense, initially located outside Territorial Waters. Then when the age of the Commons is better established, all the Raw Material Resources on Earth will be considered as belonging to all of Humanity. Including those located in Countries or Territorial Waters (This does not mean that the inhabitants of the country where the Resource is located cannot receive more (money) than the inhabitants of other countries. Once again, COMMONS are not necessarily an egalitarian distribution).
– All forms of oil (liquid, bitumen,…) and Gas (liquid, shale,…) outside the Territorial Waters initially as seen above. Parks, Reserves and biological and ecological preservation areas, such as what Australia’s Great Barrier Reef or the Amazon could be.
– Mountains that are symbolic for Human Culture such as Mount Everest, Mont Blanc, Elbrusz, Mount Ararat, Sinai, Kilimanjaro, Aconcagua, Denali, Puncak Jaya, Mount Kosciuszko to name but the highest and most culturally known. But many other Mountains, or hills, have cultural significance or are remarkable beauties to add to the list of COMMONS.
– Important Lakes and Rivers such as the Nile or the Amazon.

P.S 0 Agricultural Resources (fields, orchards, etc…) are not among these types of Universal Goods.

P.S.1 It should be noted that for certain types of Common Goods, not all humanity is yet ready to admit the relevance of this approach. Especially for Land Ownership (see the failure of Henry George and his “Single Tax“). But this can change a lot over time!

P.S.2: There are Universal COMMONS that also have a Physical base, a raw material base but which have been processed by one or more people. In this case, they are Universal CULTURAL COMMONS. The most famous example of this type is the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, which can be considered as a cultural COMMONS belonging to the whole of humanity. This does not mean that all Humanity must “love” the painting and make it its favorite: -) [There are other paintings by Leonardo da Vinci that are more emotionally successful. For example, the Lady with an Ermine, which can be considered the first portrait of a modern type in Western painting].