The Collective vs. the Cooperative

The notion of the collective and the cooperative are not the same thing, and it is essential that those who value individual rights and liberty know the difference.  The collective does not exist outside the mind of man, but the cooperative does.  The collective exists for the benefit of the central authority which directs it, whereas, the collective exists for the benefit of every individual within it.  The collective enslaves everyone within it, often including those who are in the power structure governing the collective, whereas the cooperative relies on the continued free will of every individual within it to survive.  Membership in the collective is imposed: while in the cooperative, it is voluntary.  If a member of a collective wish to leave the collective, it is likely that individual will need the permission of the central authority to do so.  However, should an individual in a cooperative wish to leave, that person is free to do so without any necessity to seek permission from anyone.  So, by definition, the collective rests on the trampling of free will while the cooperative depends upon it.  Thus, the collective is a clear violation of Natural Rights and Natural Law, while the cooperative is the epitome of both in action.

Take the notion of the collective:

Definition of COLLECTIVE

1: denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole <flock is a collective word>

2a : formed by collecting : aggregated

3a : of, relating to, or being a group of individuals

b : involving all members of a group as distinct from its individuals <a collective action>

4: marked by similarity among or with the members of a group

5: collectivized or characterized by collectivism

6: shared or assumed by all members of the group <collective responsibility>

The point of the collective is to treat a group of individuals as a single entity.  However, as it is impossible for more than two individuals to think with one mind, the collective requires a command authority to “think” for the group as a whole.  The primary focus of the group’s efforts then becomes what the central authority determines to be “in the best interest” of the group.  Thus, the needs and desires of the individuals within that group – collective – become subordinate to the needs and desires of the group (i.e. central authority).  This is a trampling of free will, as well as a form of slavery.

NOTE: while the collective often comes about through a process that bears the appearance of the Social Contract, it is impossible for a Social Contract to be created that allows the construction of a collective.  Remember, the Social Contract rests on the restraints of Natural Law, and one of those restraints is that the individuals within a community cannot give any authority to the government that the individual does not himself possess.  As no one possesses the Natural Right to force another to act against their will, the members of a collective would not have the Natural Right to construct a community where that authority is given to the central power.  This is the fundamental flaw in Thomas Hobbes’ assertions in Leviathan: that our rights come from the government and that, once a part of a government, the individual has no claim to leave it.

Now contrast the collective with the cooperative:

cooperative  noun    (Concise Encyclopedia)

Organization owned by and operated for the benefit of those using its services. Cooperatives have been successful in such fields as the processing and marketing of farm products and the purchasing of other kinds of equipment and raw materials, and in the wholesaling, retailing, electric power, credit and banking, and housing industries. The modern consumer cooperative traces its roots to Britain’s Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers (1844); the movement spread quickly in northern Europe. In the U.S., agricultural marketing cooperatives developed in rural areas in the 19th century; other contemporary examples include consumer and housing cooperatives. See also credit union.

As we can see, the cooperative actually exists in nature because it is just a collection of individuals who willingly agree to work together toward a common goal, for the common good.  Essentially, the cooperative is nothing more than an example of a Social Contract.  It conforms to all the restrictions of Natural Law; thus, the Natural Rights of every individual subject to the terms of the contract are preserved and protected.  The rights and responsibilities of very individual within the cooperative are stated, and, should a member wish to leave, they retain the Natural Right to do so without need of permission from the rest of the cooperative.  The cooperative has no central authority other than the written terms of the contract: every member of a cooperative is equal in their rights.  The cooperative does not force its will on its members as it has no will of its own: it depends on the willing and continued participation of each of its members in order to survive.  Thus, the cooperative is in total accord with individual rights and liberty.

NOTE: in Colonial times, communities set themselves up in this manner – as cooperatives.  This is what a commonwealth is all about: a willing participation in a group effort for the mutual and equal benefit of every member in that community:

Definition of COMMONWEALTH

2: a nation, state, or other political unit: as

a : one founded on law and united by compact or tacit agreement of the people for the common good

b : one in which supreme authority is vested in the people

c : republic

4: a state of the United States —used officially of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

5capitalized : a federal union of constituent states —used officially of Australia

6often capitalized : an association of self-governing autonomous states more or less loosely associated in a common allegiance (as to the British crown)

7often capitalized : a political unit having local autonomy but voluntarily united with the United States —used officially of Puerto Rico and of the Northern Mariana Islands

[NOTE: The threat of collectivism is often coupled with that of an unconstrained view of human nature.  Most of the regimes in the 20th Century that committed real atrocities were the result of a coupling of these two ideologies.  The individual who would understand the principles of liberty and seek to protect and preserve individual rights must be aware of these facts as they constitute his/her principal opponent.]

6 thoughts on “The Collective vs. the Cooperative

  1. the collective exists for the benefit of every individual within it – do you mean “cooperative”?

  2. This was the response I got to your article the “Collective versus the Cooperative”
    “The collective does not exist outside the mind of man but the cooperative does”…. Ummm WHAT????? well that is completely backwards from the reality of the human condition

    what exactly do you call the planet earth, but the collective environment upon which we all depend for our existence… half of our breathing system is the fauna that produces oxygen and uses our CO2….. the reality is that water and air and land can be “owned” by no one except through the artificial means of making Governments be they democracies or Kingdoms that write down words on pieces of paper that we all agree are binding .. in fact just like money … are products of our imagination that have no existential existence outside of our set of self created rules….

    I thought I understood your article, but could not come up with a cogent reply, because there are some truths in what he said. I don’t think the premise is correct. The “collective environment” is the independent working of multiple systems together. Yet, could these systems operate without each other? Any thoughts?

    1. OK, this is a typical response. On the surface, it sounds reasonable, but once you start to dig, you realize it is a house of cards (all built on fallacies).

      For example. Telling me the planet is a collective is a false analogy/equivocation. The planet is NOT a “collective,” but more accurately, an environment, or planetary ecosystem. SO he is wrong from the start on this point.

      Second, as you point out, the ecosystem is a co-operative between all the different species as they live together within the geological realities of this particular planet. But you cannot point to the planet and claim it is it’s own living thing — because it isn’t. The organisms on the surface of the planet are alive, but the planet, itself, is not. Ergo, you do not have a “collective” in a planet.

      You can also counter by asking him to point to the collective. Show you a picture of it. He cannot. If he tries, ANYTHING he shows you will be a collection of individuals, but not a single thing.

      I find it interesting that the person you are dealing with says money is an artificial construct, but then tells you that the idea of the collective is not. He flat-out contradicts himself in those two statements. So, if he insists on clinging to this line of reasoning, you can’t get anywhere with him because he has renounced reason. It will be like giving medicine to a dead man.

Your comments are wanted and welcome, but are moderated before posting

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s