Our Ecological Order

Within my book, “Cosmopoly,” the foundation of Cooperativism is that we fundamentally exist within a biological existence. We share our biosphere and natural environment with all that are the result of the physical existence of life and the foundation upon which everything else begins.  Therefore, the way that we human beings treat our biosphere will determine how we define it, which is directly linked to how we treat each other as well.

Our traditional way of defining things according to ourselves makes them all different form us. By defining our biosphere as being different from us, we have separated it from us as well. This has resulted in determining ourselves the same way that we think about the natural world.

The result historically has been that many people defined the biosphere as they did each other, which was always as though it were a separate entity from them and, therefore, ripe for exploitation. Therefore, only when we change our relationship with each other and see ourselves cooperatively will we also see the biosphere and our relationship with it differently than we do now.

If we are to see ourselves as a single human entity, then we need to see our bio-sphere cooperatively as our partner and the one from whom we obtain our natural existence and, therefore, the one to whom we owe our primary allegiance, because it can exist without us but we can not exist without it. When the biosphere is seen as the source of all life and we an extension of it, then we will also come to realize that it was never naturally an extension of us politically but instead we where an extension of it naturally.

When we come to see ourselves as an extension of the biosphere, we will also come to see that our political borders were never natural and only politically self-serving to those that controlled those borders, which resulted in controlling the personal capabilities of the people within them. Life’s natural resources must be seen as intended for all of us to enjoy and not just the few that politically or economically dominate them for their own purposes by politically trying to limit the access of the people and their capabilities to the political limits imposed upon them.

(pt8) The Social Entrustment System

What we the people need is a way to control our own destinies. We need at our disposal a mechanism that we control and that not only works for us but also exists only for us. It would have to be able to function in a sustainable way within itself as well as with the natural world in which it finds itself. The way to organize ourselves in a sustainable way with the natural world as well as with each other would be to form ourselves into a new form of government entity that I call social trusts. This new kind of government system would have to be able to exist in conjunction with our existing government structures. It would have to be easy to form as well as be both voluntary and temporary.

The structure that came to mind was a trust because trusts are inherently voluntary and temporary as well as being self-administrative and cooperative by nature. When we normally think of a trust we think of someone’s money being held in trust by a trustee hired to administer it. The difference between existing forms of trusts and social trusts would be that existing trusts are administrative trusts that are limited to a particular function like holding in trust property for particular purposes. A social trust would expand the concept of the trust to the level of self-governance. This would allow the public to form their own internal government in the form of social trusts for all of their public problems.

A social trust would entrust the relationships of its members to one another so that they would be able to provide themselves with a common good or service. These social trusts would be cooperative trusts that would entrust our social relationships to one another’s service.  Social trusts would be a new form of government that would only be entrusted. They would be formed to maintain the entrusted relationships made by people to each other. Each social trust would last only as long as the need for the relationship continued.

A social trust would be an autonyms self-governing entity whose internal activities would be self-managed by the membership. The activities within social trusts would be taxed collectively to the municipal and state in whose jurisdiction they would reside. This would allow the members of a social trust to provide themselves with the thing that they were entrusted for first and then collectively pay taxes to those entities that would require them.

Within a social trust its members could organize themselves in any way that they wished for themselves. A social trust in its civil trust form would be the most local and direct form of government that a person would be affiliated with, which would give them the most direct control. A social trust as a political trust would allow people to organize themselves politically in a vertical non-local way with others collectively that would be unique too themselves.