Co-Operatives: Even More Merits for Men

by Davd on October 7, 2011

 

 

Co-Operative Ownership
has merits for men especially. Let’s make use of them.
By Davd,
October 2011.

 

One important way the Law is used against men (especially via “divorce theft”) is through its emphasis on private, individual property. Marry or cohabit, and your individual property is no longer all-yours. If Sam owns a house, and he marries Eleanor and moves her into it, she can divorce him and get half its value. The same thing has happened to many readers of this site. Depending on what “jurisdiction” you live in, various other “individual private property” becomes subject to confiscation.

Furthermore, the Tax Collectors are set up for individual private property, and you can expect to pay a lot of tax as Governments start trying to end their deficits and bring down their debts. Property taxes, sales taxes, income tax… these you know. Plus, you’re mortal—when you die, the property you owned individually has to go to other owners. In the transferring process, a lot of its value will go for lawyer’s fees, paperwork fees, probate fees, and—more taxes. It isn’t only divorce lawyers and the less-honourable of women, who exploit private ownership!

There are other ways to “hold property”, and if you’re a Christian, Jew or Muslim, your Holy Scriptures tell you that private, individual property is not the best way! If conventional capitalism seems to specify individual property, and “State socialism” seems to specify only government property, and monarchism seems to say that ultimately, the Crown owns everything and other ownership exists only subject to the Crown’s tolerance and can be revoked at any time—these three do not exhaust the possibilities. It is perfectly possible for a group to own land and for that matter, just about anything else. What’s more, the Holy Book that is revered by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism prefers group ownership!

If you read Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy [especially the latter two] in the English language Bibles, carefully, you’ll see that Moses, “God”, and the priests, in some combination, framed not a private-individual-property system, nor socialism, nor monarchist “Crown property”, but a lineage-property system. Land especially belonged not to individuals, nor to the State, nor to a King or noble, but to lineages. (The parts that refer to the “Jubilee” are particularly informative about this.)

In these man-unfriendly times, with man-unfriendly legal systems (and especially, misandric “family law” that seems to work more against families than for them), lineage ownership may not be a prudent path to follow. (I like the idea that interested people might design a lineage ownership system for families, but significant changes would be needed to the misandric aspects of present law, before we can be confident one could work.) Meanwhile, there is a form of incorporation that need not be for profit, that has been used many times to bring together small groups of people who want to share work and its rewards, that works for friends as well as families, and that is democratic: The co-operative.

The co-operatives most of us know best are large, wide-open as to membership, and don’t look much like a model for teaming up to work together in numbers small enough that everyone knows everyone else well. Consumer co-operatives and credit unions [co-operative banks] are the most visible “co-ops”; while the models, the patterns of organizing, that i like even more, are:

  • the worker co-op,
    the team of three to fifty working people who incorporate as equals
    and govern their business as equals; and

  • the housing co-op,
    which can range in size from fewer than ten people to a few
    hundred.1

These two, well-known, time-tested forms of co-operative are for sharing work and for sharing property. The consumer co-operative and the Credit Union [Caisse-Populaire in Canada's other official language] are for customer-owned shopping and finance. Large numbers have more positive value, and do less harm, in shopping and pooled finance, than in living and working together.

For living and working together, everyone should know everyone else well. Then people can interact based on who each-other really are, knowing, respecting, and allowing-for one another’s quirks. If Ed loves to get up early and go fishing, while Phil tends to stay up late and get up shortly before Ed returns with his catch, it makes good sense for Phil to light the woodstove, make tea and coffee, the porridge or fried potatoes, and have a pan ready for Ed to supply the meat at breakfast. Ed benefits, Phil benefits—from knowing and co-ordinating their quirks. Living and working together calls for co-operatives of say, 150 or fewer members, so that personal knowledge can be used for everyone’s good.

Back to “Sam and Eleanor”: If Sam is a member of a co-operative that owns a row of houses, and he marries Eleanor and moves her into one of them, she can still divorce him—but she’s not divorcing the co-operative, and the house belongs to the co-operative, not to Sam. As the occupant who was there first, he will normally be the one who stays in a “one of us is leaving” situation. (If not, he can expect to get housing from the co-operative, somewhere else.) As an individual owner, Sam loses tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars; as a co-op member, he loses nothing, or at most he “loses” the cost of moving.

Suppose that instead of marrying Eleanor, Sam marries Frieda2, a loyal and co-operative woman who lives fifty happy years with him and then dies a few months before Sam does. They have four children, and one of those has children of his own, and wants to move into the house where he grew up, so his children can enjoy it as he did. If that house was individual private property, there will be lawyer’s fees, paperwork fees, probate fees, capital gains taxes, maybe inheritance taxes to pay, before Junior can succeed Sam. (If Junior can afford all those costs.) If the house is co-operatively owned, and Sam’s and Frieda’s share passes to Junior, or Junior already has a membership—the official share value is likely to be $1000. or less, and on Sam’s death it either “retires from existence” or passes to Junior. The fees and hassle will be minimal—because the co-operative embodies group ownership, and Junior is Sam’s successor in the group.

Such is the good side of co-operative organization. There does not need to be a bad side—if you choose your fellow members wisely3 (Not all men are competent to be contributing co-op members. Since beginning to discuss this subject with friends, i have been warned about alcoholics, illegal-drug-addicts, sex addicts, thieves, and implicitly, about bottom-decile men who simply aren’t able enough to do their share of the work. If you already know the other men looking to be in a start-up, well, you’ll probably know if such problems exist. Among men who’ve met recently, there needs to be a check-out process—as any monastery will also tell you.)

Actions speak louder than words. The obvious actions to take, are the start-up of hundreds of men’s co-operatives: Housing, working, even sharing vehicles. I’m willing to put “a few tens of thousands” of my savings into starting housing, enterprise, and car-share co-operatives near where i live, and i have started working on another post about specifics and details. This one is rather long already.

Just one “teaser estimate”, for now: A home (shared by 3-5 men) with no mortgage and low property taxes, for a paid-up cost to each of $5000—$10,000.


Notes:

1the “car-share” co-op, which owns two or more motor vehicles, maintains and insures them, and organizes their use by a membership that is 2-10 times as many people as there are vehicles, is more similar to a housing co-op than to a worker co-op—and it has a much shorter history than housing and worker co-ops.

2I’m not trying to pick-on any former acquaintance named Eleanor. Frieda was my grandmother, and i intentionally honour her.

3Did i hear someone say there does not need to be a bad side to marriage, if you choose your wife wisely? In the abstract, that’s so. But there are more temptations to mistreat a husband written into the statutory, regulatory, and case “family” law, than to mistreat several fellow members, in co-operative law and practices. Men are naturally more co-operative. And it is easier to mistreat one person than to mistreat several: They just might team up and “give you what-for.”

{ 85 comments… read them below or add one }

Opus October 7, 2011 at 10:57

Many and various Utopian or Communistic Socieities (e.g. New Harmony) have at various times been founded in America. They all fail, and in my experience (I once lived in such a commune) are not just as likely but even more likely to degenerate into litigation and clique-forming than the nuclear family.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
oddsock October 7, 2011 at 11:00

Opus

(I once lived in such a commune)

You old hippie you!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer October 7, 2011 at 11:18

I once lived in such a commune

————————-

Tell us about the Wesson-oil parties and the hot wax drippings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Aharon October 7, 2011 at 11:22

You’ve written an interesting piece and given me food for thought. I do belong to a credit union and did to food cooperatives in the past. They’re good. I suspect that we will see more cooperatives in the future as times get tougher and people realize they need the support of other people. Your discussions of the lineage-property system of ownership is one that I of course came across in my biblical readings yet never really sought to apply to modern society. Now, if you will excuse me, I must go and atone for my sins since today is Yom Kippur the Jewish Day of Atonement. I have been bad. I refuse to ‘man-up’ and stop ghosting while living under the oppression of our misandrist rulers, and to marry a modern woman who will probably think she owns me and probably later divorce me when she gets bored with me.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3
Rocco October 7, 2011 at 11:31

As the mrm starts to impose speech standards I’m becoming afraid to cross post…but not yet I guess.

OT

The wall street protestors are no friends to men are are openly anti-white male.

“Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly operates under a revolutionary “progressive stack.” A normal “stack” means those who wish to speak get in line. A progressive stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak before men, especially white men. This is something that has been in place since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important.”

http://feministing.com/2011/10/04/guest-post-my-hope-for-occupy-wall-street/

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
Firepower October 7, 2011 at 11:35

Men need to form powerful groups – like Indian raiding parties, Scottish or Hun warrior clans. Model them on the pirate ship.

As jobs become scarce, our enemies – liberals, the black, immigrants, gays and feminists WILL seek to plunder our monies to fund their PC insane agenda.

Banded together, men could once again be fierce and respected.

In 50 years – only those that have formed militant groups will survive in the wreckage this country will be by then.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 20
keyster October 7, 2011 at 11:42

Full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral answer to an economic system that sustains a society; because it promotes individual freedom and self-determination.

If co-ops or “collectivism” worked, the Soviet Union would still be intact and thriving, and the United States would never have survived past 1900. (Today Russia is very much a capitalistic country, although its primarliy underground in a black market system.)

It’s a sweet idea that might work in small isolated communities, but once it gets big enough to where management (a governing body) has to step in, its impractical and prone to corruption.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 7
keyster October 7, 2011 at 11:57

“As the mrm starts to impose speech standards I’m becoming afraid to cross post…but not yet I guess.”

Asking for respect of those with diverging opinion and maintaining a certian level of civilized decorum is not the same thing as “imposing speech standards”.

And yes, the “Occupy Wall Street” gang is gonna be all about “some being more equal than others” identity politics within the governance of their own little groups. It’s the generation of multi-culti/grrl power chic. Didn’t you know this?

They still haven’t made it very clear what their end game is. They want more fairness, more equal distribution of income, less corporate influence in government, etc…? If that’s the case they should be gathering in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, not Wall Street.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2
Firepower October 7, 2011 at 12:01

Opus

Many and various Utopian or Communistic Socieities (e.g. New Harmony) have at various times been founded in America. They all fail

I dunno – Apaches and Comanches lasted a few millenia.

And, they didn’t fail – they were conquered.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
Taqman October 7, 2011 at 12:12

What’s more, the Holy Book that is revered by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism prefers group ownership!

You know what? Screw You!

Well at least you are honest about it.

It is this collectivist mindset within religion that has allowed marxism to creep into every facet of society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5
Robert October 7, 2011 at 12:33

Feminism and its’ ilk are a co op. Both have been/are supported by big badass/misandrist (Ms.Andrist) Federal Government. The government lost its’ credibilty long ago.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Robert October 7, 2011 at 12:33

sellouts

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Robert October 7, 2011 at 12:35

Firepower October 7, 2011 at 12:
The government, and its’ ilk learned from their designed history.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 7, 2011 at 12:38

The co-op is not a bad idea in itself but if that solution is chosen in order to hide assets from a divorcing wife, I would say:”Don’t do it”.

Cohabiting for short periods of time will do more to protect your property. Once you are married, there is nothing that will hold a woman to cannibalize your had earned money. Laws can be changed, as you already know…

No commitment is a much better solution.

Still, my first choice would not be to buy a house: I would rather rent.

A house is something you buy if you want to raise a family. But in this day and age, one has to be a drooling idiot to commit to such an act.

Owning a house and being married is a receipe for failure.
To me, it’s quite O.K. if women own all the houses: it can only bring down the value of the houses and have a very positive impact on renting rates.
The best thing to do, IMO, is to own money, gold, silver or company shares: not that which the government can put its filthy hands on.

Your “belongings” should always be in the form of something you can take some place else with ease (AND hide with equal ease): can’t do that with a house.

A house will pin you down to the ground: money will allow you to be free.

If all your investments can be hidden, you can “fuck off” at any time you want: if you have a house, you are basically crucified on it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 5
Robert October 7, 2011 at 12:39

They were conquered by the same goverment that has been conquered/scammed/lied to/used/Ms.used/ jacked/highjacked by feminists. They slept with the/thier enemy/enemies so Feck them!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Davd October 7, 2011 at 12:40

Opus October 7, 2011 at 10:57
Many and various Utopian or Communistic Socieities (e.g. New Harmony) have at various times been founded in America. They all fail, …

The [Anabaptist] Hutterites have been going strong for centuries — excepting when under outright violent persecution, and even that they survive better than most. The [Catholic, but only partly Roman, with a few Orthodox roots left] Benedictines are in their second millennium.

And as Firepower commented, the Apache and Comanche, who were not pacifists, were also quite durable.

The keys to co-operative success seem to include –
– mutual respect
– common values
– “Primary Group” size: Three to 100, maybe 150 with a long history, and my assessment is, 3-10 founders and keep fewer than 20 for the first two years.

I’ve not been a member of any “Hippie commune”, but have visited a protest camp and a “Rainbow Gathering” on West Vancouver Island, both overnight. They were not co-ops, nor communities, they were more nearly festivals. (Saturnalia but not quite so raucous?)

Festivals aren’t meant to endure.

As Charles Martel pointed out months ago on this site, John Bagot Glubb’s _The Fate of Empires_ found that 14 empires lasted about the same length of time–250 years. Well ordered families and communities can last longer.

Co-operatives need not be communities. “Castlegreen” housing co-op in Thunder Bay, ON, was more community like than an ordinary neighbourhood of the same size, but not a true community and as far as i heard, not meant to be. Much the same can be said for worker co-ops. The smaller ones tend to be close to community; the larger, more like a good sports team, major climbing expedition, good village.

And as a good father, or a man who’s had a good father or grandfather, knows, rugged individualism isn’t really what’s normal. We’re pack animals, at home with a few good friends rather than alone or in a crowd, which is why most men enjoy dogs more than cats.

Enough .. i shouldn’t write an essay and call it a comment.

Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) October 7, 2011 at 12:56

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 31
Redod October 7, 2011 at 13:08

Rebel gets it. If you’re a man of money, you probably already know this. But if you’re just an average shmoe, read his post a million times.

“A house will pin you down to the ground: money will allow you to be free.

If all your investments can be hidden, you can “fuck off” at any time you want: if you have a house, you are basically crucified on it.”

1 MillioN Times

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4
(r)Ev October 7, 2011 at 13:16

These ideas are powerful and pragmatic, and work magnificently on a small scale. They have impeccably long histories of working well for small communties, say 1,500 inhabitants, tops, and probably work best at sizes around 150. Evolutionary biology tells us that the band or tribe of 150 is about optimal in terms of our pre-historic social group size.

Above commenters are correct in the observation that these ideas don’t normally scale well, and work best in more rural locations. There are exceptions: REI, one of the nation’s largest outdoor equipment retailers, is a co-op, and is known for treating its employee-members very well, and somehow it manages to keep costs at a reasonable level & maintains itself very competitively in a tough business.

The Soviet Union model didn’t fail because of the co-op/commune structure at a local level, it failed because it tried to manage thousands of small co-ops from a central location. Central planning is a poor way to allocate resources, as proven by the fall of the USSR, and China’s recent massive, still-waiting-to-pop bubble run-up.

Certainly on a local level, co-ops can be very, very competitive and offer benefits outside of conventional economics thinking, including enhanced social networks and community fabric, tighter social bonds, more collaborative efforts, etc. These are things that can’t be monetarily valued. We’ll certainly see a lot more of the local co-op ideas in the future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Rebel October 7, 2011 at 13:25

“You men deserve to be screwed over.

You really do.”

Fuck you!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6
Rocco October 7, 2011 at 13:47

@ Rebel

When I read the article I was thinking the same thing….renting is far better than owning in a State that has confiscutorial policies like ours does in case of divorce.

I’m currently renting and my family is suggesting I buy a home but I value freedom.

This post gives me the language I need to understand why I have this feeling that buying for a single guy who is seriously considering expating is really really really dumb.

Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
MobilePT October 7, 2011 at 14:05

@Rebel: “if you have a house, you are basically crucified on it.”

Not if you’re willing to walk away from it. You might lose money, but so what- go out and make some more. If a man doesn’t have a house he doesn’t really need a lot of money, which helps maintain emotional and economic balance. However, I would not enter the housing market at this time as I think it can still fall a long, long way.

In an appreciating market there is usually a premium paid for ownership because many rental properties were purchased several years ago at lower cost (some may even be paid off) and the landlord can write off all sorts of stuff the homeowner can’t. In my area, ~$1200/mo rent will put you in a 3 bd/2 ba house that would be ~twice that in mortgage, property tax, and insurance (not to mention repairs and maintenance).

In a declining market, the homeowner can get stuck with a property that’s worth less than the remainder of the mortgage.* The renter just negotiates a lower rent with the landlord or moves if rents are dropping. The canard about owners building equity while renters just “throw it away” largely vanishes if the differential between rental/ownership costs is saved rather than spent. Most do not have the financial discipline to do this; however, if you do, your savings should be much more liquid than equity in a house. Real estate transaction fees also can wipe out a whole bunch of your equity, whereas the renter may be looking at a stack of cash equivalents an arm’s length away.

*We’ve all seen the articles about how the divorce rate dropped when the bottom fell out of the real estate market/economy. Without the pot-o-gold at the end of the divorce rainbow, it seems fewer women are anxious to file. The obvious corollary is that it might be a really, really good time for the husband to get divorced, if things seem to be heading that way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Ted October 7, 2011 at 14:28

“If Sam is a member of a co-operative that owns a row of houses, and he marries Eleanor and moves her into one of them…”

So, in this scheme, Sam has some sort of entitlement to live in one of those houses.

This is the weak spot in the scheme. In a divorce, Eleanor will take Sam to Family Court which will either order the entitlement to be transferred to her; or, worse, will come up with a monetary value for the entitlement which Sam has to pay her or go to jail.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
Arch October 7, 2011 at 14:31

Individual property rights is the basis of a free society.

Currently those rights are under attack in the Western world under many different forms, including divorce theft. The solution isn’t to adapt to those laws but to fight them directly.

This site seems to be headed down a leftward trail and that is always a dead end. Collectivism always fails as soon as most people learn other people will pick up their slack. The supply of work to be done exceeds the amount of work done and the system collapses. That’s exactly why entitlement reform is vital to the survival of the United States as a nation.

Even communist China had to adopt a version of free market capitalism to survive economically or go the way of the USSR. I can’t believe people are still recycling these bad ideas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Ted October 7, 2011 at 14:34

@Peter-Andrew: – inevitably – Nolan(c) October 7, 2011 at 12:56

” Anything you sign your NAME to the GUVMENT OWNS.”

Yes, you got this bit right.

“You men deserve to be screwed over.”

You men? You talk like a woman, Peter.

“You really do.”

Thanks for telling us what side you’re on, Peter.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4
Taqman October 7, 2011 at 14:43

This site seems to be headed down a leftward trail and that is always a dead end.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the spearhead is heading down the leftist path.

However I will make an observation.

It is obvious that the MRM leans heavily towards the fiscal side of conservatism even as their may be disagreements among moral and social issues (game vs mgtow celibacy, embracing promiscuity vs expatriating for a traditional marriage).

The economic liberals among us try to keep a low profile. They are the formally good mangina liberals who thought that by catering to woman’s political desires would make themselves safe from divorce. They got burned, but are still unwilling to fully swallow the red pill. This article is an attempt by them to subtly turn us in their direction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2
Somehow Somewhat October 7, 2011 at 14:44

They can just take away men’s co-op membership rights and give them to women during divorce.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Ted October 7, 2011 at 14:56

@keyster October 7, 2011 at 11:42

” Full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral answer to an economic system that sustains a society; because it promotes individual freedom and self-determination.”

Up to a point. The point being where the accumulation of money enables the people who control that money to make even more money without needing to be particularly competent in anything at all, apart from having the money that is. It’s a positive-feedback situation; having money leads easily to having even more money.

The current monetary crisis is the end result of this imbalance.

“If co-ops or “collectivism” worked, the Soviet Union would still be intact and thriving, ”

They were unbalanced too, in the other direction.

” It’s a sweet idea that might work in small isolated communities, ”

Yes – IMO because social mechanisms can impose a balance, like David pointed out in the original article.

“but once it gets big enough to where management (a governing body) has to step in, its impractical and prone to corruption.”

You’ve hit the nail on the head. This is the basic problem. How to solve it? Maybe by looking at successful versus unsuccessful societies and trying to work out the winning formula.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Aharon October 7, 2011 at 15:09

I’m no expert on the subject of biblical commerce and community living. However, as I understand it the bible does not call for anything like communism. It does call for or advice people to support one another in more of an extended family setting and in perhaps a community setting more or less. There are stories of those who did live in tight knit community sharing groups and other stories about people practicing a trade on their own. Being compassionate toward the poor was a commandment as was not to be jealous or bitter of a neighbor who had more wealth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
greyghost October 7, 2011 at 15:33

Keyster reading your comment
“If co-ops or “collectivism” worked, the Soviet Union would still be intact and thriving, and the United States would never have survived past 1900. (Today Russia is very much a capitalistic country, although its primarliy underground in a black market system.)

It’s a sweet idea that might work in small isolated communities, but once it gets big enough to where management (a governing body) has to step in, its impractical and prone to corruption.
has given me an idea of how something like that can work. Each male co-op should be small and managable. What would be interesting is trade between co-ops. only a few guys would be on the surface working in the government controlled society. While others would be under ground working in the co-op economy. A skilled mechanic or technician would do auto repairs for may 5 to 6 co-ops for cash and make a living with out ever appearing on the radar. the possiblities are only limited by creativity need and demand. With this economy going into the second and grapes of wrath style reccession (depression) there will be some motivation to behave in a co-op.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Otto Katz October 7, 2011 at 15:55

We need more articles about asset protection.
If cooperative ownership were good, it would be mentioned in books about asset protection. But it’s not.

What if you want to raise kids in a long term unmarried relationship? One strategy that comes to mind would be to encourage the woman partner to buy the house in her name, while promising to contribute to the cost (essentially, paying her rent.) That way, if she kicks you out, you lose nothing, but she has a strong incentive not to kick you out. One drawback is that this should not be done in a common law marriage state. Does anyone see other drawbacks?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
KARMA MRA MGTOW October 7, 2011 at 16:21

Firepower October 7, 2011 at 11:35

WTF!

So glad I removed this website from my posters…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) October 7, 2011 at 16:29

OT

Wah, wah……men are starting to act like….like…..like…..WOMEN.

How can this be?

Maybe because acting like a MAN is HATED ON? Could THAT be it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2046284/Ashton-Kutcher-Demi-Moore-Why-todays-soppy-men-act-like-toddlers.html

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 17
Pirran October 7, 2011 at 16:32

Don’t Marry.

Hmmm…..I think that solves all the problems above. Yup, that seems to be the solution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) October 7, 2011 at 16:40

Rebel October 7, 2011 at 13:25
“Fuck you!”

Rebel. For two years virtually ALL men in the MRA area have CHOSEN to be willfully ignorant.

Whos responsibility is that?

Are you going to argue SOMEONE ELSE is responsible for MAKING MEN LEARN?

If men CHOOSE to be ignorant. They deserve to be screwed over.

If you do not like that? Who’s problem is that?

Hint. NOT MINE.

Every man paying alimony and child support who has read my work is doing so by choice. You can hate on me all you like. But I PROVED how to not pay alimony and child support. If MRAs had any balls? NONE of them would be paying alimony and child support.

Instead? You say FUCK YOU to the man who gave you the keys to freedom.

Platos observations have proven to be correct.

I will not waste my time any more on men who refuse to join MBA. The rest of you who have refused to educate yourselves for two years? How is that MY concern?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 22
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) October 7, 2011 at 16:56

OT…

LOL! Even stupid uber bitch liz jones is starting to notice young women are stupid, drunken, whores dressed like sluts who are destroying theirr futures.

If EVEN Liz jones is noticing it must REALLY be bad.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2046644/Binge-drinking-What-drives-young-women-path-self-destruction.html

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 13
oddsock October 7, 2011 at 17:05

Instead? You say FUCK YOU to the man who gave you the keys to freedom.

PAN

Curb your ego. Rebel and many others have found their own keys to freedom they just simply did not follow your route. Many others will do the same.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4
Rocco October 7, 2011 at 17:15

@ Oddsock

Check this out, (I hate saying it) nice article in Salon on the US riots.

It seem the PTB have been paying off NY cops with a tax free slush fund account basically turning wall street into the green zone in Iraq.

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/07/the_nypd_now_sponsored_by_wall_street/

A good read for any american who thinks our country isn’t like that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
(r)Ev October 7, 2011 at 17:21

@Rocco,

Buying a home right now isn’t a great idea for several reasons. Chief among them is that real estate is still in a massive bubble, and has a long way to go before it equalizes.

Consider that for centuries, up until the 1980′s, the median home price was roughly equivalent to the median yearly income. This made home ownership affordable. Then the flood of cheap mortages led to a frenzied price run-up that lasted for the better part of three decades, and in 2008, the bubble popped, & we’re still seeing deflation. Many more sane analysts think we have a long way to go before things equilibrate. I for one will be sitting out the market until things settle down & sellers come back to Planet Earth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
oddsock October 7, 2011 at 17:25

Rocco

Thanks mate.

I had read the article previously. I think it was on the Max Keiser site and a few others.

This is what I mean about trying to get past the naiviety of most Americans and those that still believe in the politics of your country. It’s a complete farce but they refuse point blank to see the evidence right before their eyes.

I try to get them to see it but I am at a disadvantage being an Englishman. Most go into America the great every one envies our freedom stars and stripes mode.

Having said that. I do understand how little real info gets past your media.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
oddsock October 7, 2011 at 17:31

KARMA MRA MGTOW

Firepower October 7, 2011 at 11:35

WTF!

So glad I removed this website from my posters…

Come on mate, you’re experienced enough to have recognised the tactics and silly tantrums.

Does he not remind you of anyone? Think of China !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
tweell October 7, 2011 at 17:33

A co-op is an interesting way to get around property and wealth confiscation, but there are definite disadvantages. How about an irrevocable trust instead? It’s the way wealthy folks keep their wealth from being eaten away by trophy wives and such. As the trustee to an irrevocable trust, you would have the use of the property and assets placed in that trust, but since you wouldn’t own the assets, they couldn’t be taken from you in a divorce or any other lawsuit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Rocco October 7, 2011 at 17:49

@ Oddsock

One of the reasons I posted that was for the purposes of strategy. Firstly, as an American, it is unusual to get to see the blanket pulled back and the man behind the curtain but also for gauging armed response to mrm actions. Inevitably we will be marching, the only question is where and when.

It’s kinda funny in a stereotypical way, when I think of my role in the mrm, it’s really the role Italians have played in organized movement in the US. I suppose that’s why I chose the moniker Rocco.

Truth be told, Rocco is alot more like Hoffa than he is different. My cause is mr, his auto workers but I have to admit who I am. If you guys want to know my agenda, this is it. I’m very good at leading the march and any “trouble” we may encounter.

I look to my handlers, you smart leader types, but I like action. If I have to stir it up, like I do here, well, it’s something I’m good at. If I need to back down, you guys will have to tell me because, when I’m in the moment, I don’t see anything but the target.

Don’t worry, no one ever got arrested in a march I lead, pay raise, yes, better conditions, absolutely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
oddsock October 7, 2011 at 17:50

Rocco

At the great risk of offending you and many of your country men. Listen to these recent videos.

Ok yes, I understand you may not like Alex Jones, I am no fan of his but, he does have some excellent guests and ruins many an interview by talking over them. So brace yourself. Even his voice greats with me.

I assume you have heard of G Edward Griffin ? Listen to what he says about the politics and the misunderstanding that most Americans still have. Or as he says, it is foreign to most American ears.

If this guy can’t get it through to your country men then nothing will.

Democrats are no feckin different than Republicans, simple as that. Same set up in the UK and many other western countries.

Universal Serfdom with G. Edward Griffin

One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAR6cpk9xFI&feature=channel_video_title

Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAxuer2lmpo&feature=relmfu

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
sharp October 7, 2011 at 18:58

OT: Barbara Sheenan murders her husband by shooting him 11 times, gets acquittal thanks to the bullshit abuse excuse. Response:

- MSM columnists navel-gave and debate the bullshit abuse excuse, a defense abused by lawyers right in your stupid face.
- women again show they don’t give a shit about or even understand rule of law or the concept of justice.
- men, besides some in comment sections, shrug their shoulders and show they don’t give a shit about their fellow man, or anything in particular for that matter.

Another day at the office.

http://tinyurl.com/62rdnqm

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Rebel October 7, 2011 at 19:34

PAN:

” You say FUCK YOU to the man who gave you the keys to freedom.”

That is highly commendable. You have done the job.

Giving insults is not part of the work. Stop doing that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Taqman October 7, 2011 at 20:50

Is it possible to neg an entire article?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Charles Walbridge October 7, 2011 at 21:00

Anybody seriously interested in cooperative living should research cohousing. It’s not easy to set up (the laws are not the problem; people learning to trust each other takes substantial initial time and effort).
Once off the ground it definitely works. You don’t have to take my word. Find a cohousing setup near you — and go see.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Avenger October 7, 2011 at 21:30

While others would be under ground working in the co-op economy. A skilled mechanic or technician would do auto repairs for may 5 to 6 co-ops for cash and make a living with out ever appearing on the radar.

And does this person keep his money under his mattress? You also need a credit card today for practically anything.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Avenger October 7, 2011 at 21:39

And what if a member, or one of their wives, gets pissed off about something and reports them to the IRS? Still think they’ll all be “under the radar” then? The only people who stay under the radar are nonentities who have nothing and are living from hand to mouth and are of no interest to the IRS.
There are people who know how to launder money but you still need a business or way to do it through and even here you have to be careful and make sure the taxes are paid and not consistantly spend a lot more than you earn because the IRS has ways of profiling your spending habits.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Ted October 7, 2011 at 22:03

“And does this person keep his money under his mattress? ”

Why not? (OK, maybe in a hidden safe or something). That’s how it used to work.

“You also need a credit card today for practically anything.”

In the offline world, cash still works. It’s still legal tender, for now anyway.

“The only people who stay under the radar are nonentities who have nothing and are living from hand to mouth and are of no interest to the IRS.”

That’s how you want to look…

“There are people who know how to launder money…”

You’re buying into their mindset. It shouldn’t need “laundering”. It’s your money, honestly earned. You can’t say the same for them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Rocco October 7, 2011 at 22:23

@ Peter

I think there’s a push to clean up language on mens rights sites as we are getting serious attention by powerful types, in other words quoted.

I think it’s time to start laying out for us some of the things your courts and banks could do for us, we are interested as you can see from this post.

Traditional banks are attacking us, the courts are attacking us, our women are attacking us.

I would love to learn more about your bank plans especially how you would guartentee investments, that’s what I would be concerned about, I want FCIC type security because that’s what I have now.

If you don’t like the word F@ck don’t click on this link.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/some-questions-on-strategy/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Rocco October 7, 2011 at 22:50

OT

If you want to start thinking like politicians, here’s an example of president Obama repeating the history of 70 years ago and negotiating the taxes paid by farmers in California for a cash crop that is supplying produce to 70% of the country and those are not paying taxes.

His budget is empty, what does he do? Like the Volsted act, he talks of prohibiting it….or is he just saber rattling? He says it’ like the gold rush here in california, wow, that’s moral outrage I think….wait

I think this may turn up in your produce store soon.

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2011/10/obama_administration_memo_spel.php

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Atlas October 8, 2011 at 00:52

I have been lurking here pretty much since the Spearhead started.

Thanks for all the info that is given here, it helped me to take the red pill and start to take steps to get out from under the “man.” PAN was one of those instrumental to helping to see reality.

But, in all those years of reading here, I have never seen anyone state WHY the powers that be can do things like this. How can they take homes, children, money from the men and hand it to others? It seems like we are complaining about the problem and complaining about the symptoms and not DEFINING the problem. I guess I am looking for the root of the issue, can’t kill the weed unless you pull out the roots…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Curtis(Anonymous) October 8, 2011 at 01:40

They get away with it because people don’t trust each other.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Hayden Hanba October 8, 2011 at 01:42

Karma,
My decision to do the same has just been made. While many of the articles are worth reading, the PAN-Firepower combo would turn away man on the fence about the MRM. Since I don’t possess the discipline to ignore those two knuckleheads, I need to stop reading here as well.

On the way out, I offer my sincere thanks to Wilmer for his efforts and activism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4
Migu October 8, 2011 at 01:47

I don’t know what Bible you were reading, but private individual property is recommended by the Bible. Read Isaiah, or ezekial, then remember Mathew who gave up his collective property (tax revenues) to rebuild his wealth privately, first spiritual and after death privately, instead of through rent-seeking.

Don’t give a man a fish. Teach him to fish.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
AfOR October 8, 2011 at 02:36

Guys, you need to seriously wake up…..

The individual man has precisely ZERO power against the State, whether that be State police, State secret family court, State bailifs, State taxes.

***ZERO*** fucking power…. they have ALL the power and can do anything they please, surprise surprise, they do.

As many of you know I was the victim of an FRA on day one of a separation / custody battle that went nuclear at the outset.

So yes, I was a fuckup and a fool for being with that particular psycho skank ho, and yes I knew that when I was with her……. BUT…….

At least I wasn’t a **complete** fucking asshole, I started out that relationship with nothing and ended it will everything I went into it with, my own personal posessions, tools, heirloooms, all safely stuffed away, we were in a rented house and when she wanted the court to order vacant posession in 48 hours, upon receipt of that information it took me 4 hours to call the local “houses cleared” guys and then place was bare walls…. no biggies as I always made a point of buying good used furnishings anyway, my lawyer tells me “you can’t do that” and I just look at him and say “fait accompli, fuck all you or her or the judge can do about it”

and they couldn’t, because I had pre-empted any fucking kangaroo court order….. the skank bitch had to go and live with relatives, which made her hate me even more and try to attack me even more in secret family court, so fucking what, I was screwed there anyway, see the bit above about ALL the power.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
Avenger October 8, 2011 at 03:00

Taqman October 7, 2011 at 20:50

Is it possible to neg an entire article?

Yes, it sounds like it was written by some poor naive kid who doesn’t have the slightest idea about how anything works. I was going to take it apart piece by piece but that would be a waste of time because most of the readers here have no idea what they’re doing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
CorkyAgain October 8, 2011 at 03:09

But, in all those years of reading here, I have never seen anyone state WHY the powers that be can do things like this. How can they take homes, children, money from the men and hand it to others?

The power of the state rests, ultimately, on one or the other of two pillars: (1) violence and the threat of violence; or (2) the consent of the governed.

In the first case, the state is like the local gangster, taking what he wants and demanding payments in return for his “protection”. He also dispenses favors, as a way of securing loyalty and also to create an obligation to return the favor at some time in the future. It’s all there in the first two Godfather movies. The book, unlike the movies, says explicitly that Don Corleone is running a kind of shadow government, distinct from the one recognized by the Constitution and other laws. When the undertaker comes to him at the beginning of the first movie, asking for something to be done about the man who assaulted his daughter, the don complains that he should have come to him first instead of going to the police. You can be in one system or the other, but not both. Both the book and the movies make clear that the establishment government is no less corrupt than Don Corleone’s. In fact, the don is somewhat of a sympathetic figure, which suggests that we’re meant to prefer his government over the State. Think about that!

The problem with ruling through force is, of course, that the ruled vastly outnumber the rulers and their goons. If the masses ever did rise up against them, they soon be overwhelmed, even if they have all the guns. Yes, they’d be able to inflict many casualties, but they’d lose.

So the rulers had to come up with a more sophisticated approach.

In the second case, people accept the authority of the governor as legitimate. Moreover, they internalize his rules and follow them even they’re not being coerced. This is called the rule of law. In a “democracy” like ours, elections are used to confer this kind of legitimacy on the rulers and the system they oversee. We no longer believe in the divine right of kings, but we do believe in the “People”, who have essentially taking the place of God when it comes to crowning our kings. So our rulers pretend to be our agents, carrying out the will of the people.

Of course, this could be a problem for them when they want to do something most of the people would oppose (for example, giving bailouts to his wealthy banker friends).

So he enlists the help of his friends in the media, who launch a PR/propaganda campaign designed to create the illusion of majority support (Nixon’s “Silent Majority”).

Or perhaps the PR attempts to create that majority by, for example, implying that the policy in question is favored by all of the relevant experts (global warming). Since people have been conditioned to defer to the “experts” that’s usually all it takes.

These same media pals, of course, also see to it that the only choices offered in the elections are those which are acceptable to the ruling elite. (Just ask any Ron Paul supporter how that works.) And then, when the voters have dutifully selected one or the other of the preselected choices, the media will of course trumpet that the winner has a mandate to rule!

… and that’s only scratching the surface of the tricks they use.

The response to the second case is, of course, to take the Red Pill, see them for what they really are, and refuse to recognize them as anything but illegitimate pretenders to the throne.

(By “throne” I simply mean the right to rule over you. That might imply a King or similar chieftain, as a sort of paterfamilias. But it could also mean an elder chosen from within the community in recognition of his virtues — the original plan for the US was something like this. A town would select a man they all knew and trusted as their representative or spokesman. He’d be someone who had lived with them and with whom they’d done business, so they would know him for an honest, prudent man with their best interests at heart. They would not select some carpetbagger or snake-oil salesman who only showed up at election time and who nobody knew anything about beyond what he told them in his very brief campaign speeches and posters.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
CorkyAgain October 8, 2011 at 03:20

Apologies for the typos, grammatical errors and mixed-up pronouns in my last comment. It’s late and I probably should have gone to bed instead of pecking away at the keyboard. I’d edit it if I could, but the system won’t let me. Hopefully you’ll be able to make sense of it anyway and that it will be at least mildly interesting to some of you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
CorkyAgain October 8, 2011 at 03:43

All those words and I still didn’t answer the question.

They do that stuff because they can. Period. Full stop.

Whether they have a right to do it is another question altogether, to which the answer is “Hell no!”

Now, what are we/you going to do about it? How do we get “should” to overrule “can”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Atlas October 8, 2011 at 05:15

Thanks CorkyAgain for your replies. Very informative.

From what I can see, “out-violenceing” govt is pretty unlikely. Too many sheep.

But withdrawing consent, that might be something worth looking into.

Out of curiosity, how many of you divorced guys have repudiated your old marriage licenses? I have not yet and was considering doing that as a way of withdrawing consent. No marriage license = no contract with govt.

Also, I have been reading a great deal on commercial liens as a common law remedy for abuses like many of us suffered. Comments?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
oddsock October 8, 2011 at 06:22

Atlas

If you haven’t already ? I think you will find some of the links provided by PAN will be of great interest to you. I strongly suspect they will go a long way in answering your origial question about how ” they” can do what they do and get away with it.

This may help explain things as a starter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NdGT-RIXK8&feature=related

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rocco October 8, 2011 at 07:34

@ Avenger

Be nice to the author who was gracious to address us. Maybe it was written by a younger man.

MRA Joke:

What do you call a young man on and mra web site?

Ans:

The future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
Atlas October 8, 2011 at 08:26

Oddsock, thanks. I had not seen that one. I will review.

I think that PAN has a ton of good stuff on his site. He really helped me to start on my “disconnect” journey.

I think that others may benefit from a more subtle approach then PAN advocates. I am not saying that he is wrong, I actually think that he is EARLY.

Heading out for the weekend, I will check this post when I get back mid week. Take care all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Firepower October 8, 2011 at 08:27

Ms. Hayden Hanba

While many of the articles are worth reading, the PAN-Firepower combo would turn away man on the fence about the MRM.

Only if
he left his balls
on that fence…
Miss “Hanba”

Tell Hayden Hanna “Hi”
and lil’ ferdi sockpuppet, too

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Firepower October 8, 2011 at 08:33

Davd

And as Firepower commented, the Apache and Comanche, who were not pacifists, were also quite durable.

Your piece made many intelligent points based on fact.

That you know what a Hutterite is, shows you know your history.

Problem is, your audience here knows more about Blood Elf Mages. And, worse still – they think they’re more real.

Knowing history – what does that predict?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
keyster October 8, 2011 at 09:24

“But, in all those years of reading here, I have never seen anyone state WHY the powers that be can do things like this. How can they take homes, children, money from the men and hand it to others?”

It’s a one-two punch of old chivalric/SoCon family law and new feminist governance.
There was a time when more women stayed at home as housewives, raising children while husband went off and worked to provide. If she wanted a divorce she’d have to first prove the marriage irreconcilable or that there was infidelity or other abuse, and then she would be awarded the children, the house and spousal support. It was only natural that this occur since she was a “stay at home mom” and he worked, that she be given the children to care for. So she had little education or training to work at anything, while ex-husband would be ordered to continue to provide. The law was her “safety net”, for the sake of the children.

Fast forward to the last couple of decades or so and we have no-fault divorce, women out-numbering men in employment, (making damn good money), we have “daycare centers” and then public school care centers…a time where women are doing fabulously well for themselves, (men not so much)….BUT…..

The family court system hasn’t adapted to reflect this. The judges that make these subjective decisions about who gets what and why based on “feelings” didn’t get the memo…that just because a woman is deciding to divorce her husband doesn’t mean SHE’S the victim and should be thusly compensated for it. It’s the judge’s DUTY (as government proxy husband and father) to make sure she and the kids are safe and cared for by legally binding the MAN to it.

It’s not equality and it’s not fair, because feminists only care about certian kinds of inequality. If a little old fashioned chivalry happens to hang around that benefits women, its groovy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
universe October 8, 2011 at 10:06

Good article. There are possibilities here.
The legalities provide more to consider. Likely, each province, or state, (my province) has its own Co-operatives laws or reg.s to follow.

However Canada’s “Human (non) Rights” Commission’s dictatorial intrusions would most likely curb the excluding of females as co-owners. This niggling bureaucracy has the unearned power to supercede over any legislative/statute directive.
If the poison bureaucrats don’t kybosh any man owned co-operative, some feminist hog or sympathizer may intervene with a crusade against such an undertaking. Dictators have an addiction to directing and micro-managing the lives of others.
From my experiences, each potential co-operatives members’ awareness and attitude is important to its survival. If there is even a hint of feminism, without the presence of aware men telling it to get lost, in a co-operative it will eventually become female favouring and directed.
Then another idea is required to keep the greed and piggishness of feminism from the creative lives of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Avenger October 8, 2011 at 14:25

Rocco writes
MRA Joke:

What do you call a young man on and mra web site?

Ans:

The future.

I really hope that’s not true because from what I’ve seen the future is going to be pretty dim then.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Davd October 9, 2011 at 06:29

My apologies for not better emphasizing–perhaps with redundancy for the benefit of those to whom it is a new subject–the “group” character of small co-operatives as distinct from the “voluntary association” character of large ones. I was trying to keep down the word count, and perhaps i tried too hard.

A Group is a set of people, each of whom knows all the others personally, and who interact regularly. Groups seem to have an upper size limit of a few hundred; (r)Ev said 150 was optimal as the size of a tribe; Hutterite experience seems to be that a community of 150 and growing, should divide into two communities, and the maximum working number for a community is around 200.

Men are “pack animals”, formed by hunting; that was a major point of my post on violence. The great merits of group-sized co-operatives come from their fit with this aspect of our nature. One of them is succession: Groups change in composition as new members enter and old members die. Family farms were once the great expression of group ownership–a few still are–and imaginably, families might incorporate as co-operatives to formally state that the family, not one person, owns and operates the farm. I have a 7000+ word “working paper” posted on everyman.ca, about marriage and family reform, with the traditional family farm as chief example:
http://www.everyman.ca/2011/08/24/marriage-and-family-reform/

It is normal for men to form groups with strong mutual trust and loyalty; group-sized co-operatives can give those groups legal ownership of shared assets while respecting and effecting natural succession.

REI (Recreational Equipment Inc) in Seattle can’t be a group, it has too many members in too many far-scattered places. It’s a voluntary association and needs some formal structure that a group doesn’t need… as does the co-op where i buy groceries and fuel.

Ted .. re “Sam and Eleanor”: I don’t see how a court could order a co-operative to violate its own rules, without finding the co-operative at fault. The co-operative is not the spouse, and formally would probably be deemed a landlord. Would a court order a family member, who had allowed Sam to live in a house [s]he owns, to turn over the house to Eleanor? Would a court order a landlord to evict one tenant and accept another?

However, i may write one or two of the provincial specialists in co-op incorporation with whom i corresponded in the early summer, to see if that is actually a threat.

Otto Katz: If books about asset protection presume individual ownership, co-operatives are beyond their scope. (Anyway, there is no asset protection that can prevent death. Succession must be part of the “picture”, and co-operatives are one very good way to effect succession.)

Universe: Are there any Canadian all-women co-operatives, co-housing [incorporated entities by whatever official name], other incorporated bodies that might provide a precedent for all-men incorporation documents? If there are women-only incorporation documents, then to refuse men-only documents of the same basic form violates gender equality.
Are there precedents for incorporation documents with the members choosing new members by consensus?
There ought to be an archive of precedents somewhere, eh?

Dalrock has a good summary of recent research on men, women and trust, in which the feminist spin is replaced by a who-trusts-who perspective:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/men-and-women-are-both-more-trusting-of-men/
The straightforward interpretation will be comfortable to readers here: Men are on average, more worth trusting.

The first part of making group-sized co-operatives work is forming the group, with other men worth trusting.

Anonymous age 69 October 9, 2011 at 09:22

PAN, you say people don’t follow your advice because they are stupid. Anyone who follows your advice is extremely stupid.

A few months ago, I read of the death of a man and his son. Their car was stopped by the cops, and they did not have driver’s licenses. They announced, ala PAN, that as sovereign humans they did not need d/l, because to have one made them subjects of the nation.

They died in the ensuing shoot-out. Just as any idiot who follows your advice is going to die.

Other people, including millions of inhabitants of the southern states, also claimed the right to exempt themselves from the laws of the nation. Hundreds of thousands of people died, and under your plan, they will also die.

You are alive today only because you expatted from your native nation. Now, that is not stupid. So, your actions actually belie your advice. You don’t really follow it yourself. You are not in Australia openly rejecting national laws. You expatted. That is why you are still alive today.

And, that is the correct solution for men who do not wish to be subject to the laws of their nation. People don’t ignore your advice because they are stupid. They ignore your advice because they are NOT stupid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
E October 9, 2011 at 12:17

You also need a credit card today for practically anything.

At my work during lunch time I mentioned I was thinking about buying a new TV. My co-worker replied he saw a pretty good deal where you can buy a nice TV for $250 a month paid in 6 easy installments.

The first idea that popped into my head was why THE HELL would a person ever need to buy a $1,500 TV on credit? They SHOULD have enough in their savings account to buy it free and clear. And then it hit me, like 2 seconds later, my co-worker is married with kids so yeah that explains why he has no money.

Does a man need credit? If he’s single the answer is NO.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
universe October 9, 2011 at 15:19

Are there any Canadian all-women co-operatives, co-housing [incorporated entities by whatever official name], other incorporated bodies that might provide a precedent for all-men incorporation documents?

– Davd, sorry, don’t know or have not heard of any (yet).
If ever there were an all-female housing arrangement, to the exclusion of men, outside of a state-sponsored DV amusement parlour it would still take the initiative of (sadly) one individual working alone to advance the issue of unequal female exclusivity up the chain of ‘legal’ command.
Until more competent men surface for the promoting of men’s issues it will likely be the lone man working on behalf of all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ted October 9, 2011 at 16:09

@David
“The co-operative is not the spouse, and formally would probably be deemed a landlord.”

Suppose Sam is accused of DV and is prevented from living in the house. If he is renting, he can just stop paying the rent. If he bought the house, then his assets are bound up in it, but he can’t use them. The co-operative is somewhere between the two, I guess. Just where is the question.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 9, 2011 at 16:25

@E-the credit card isn’tto buy things but sometrhing you need to make reservations for a hotel or rent a car, or to check into a hotel and things of that nature. Otherwise, you’ll have to put up a big security deposit and always have to carry around a lot of cash. Sure, you can pay cash for an airline ticket but that may also make you more prone to be profiled. And where do you keep yoiur cash safely? At the very least you’ll need a bank account with a debit card or a safe deposit box, both of which require ID and a SS# these days even if the bank account is a non interest bearing account. You’ll even need ID to open a PO Box or one of those post office box places that are also required to get ID.And btw, even if you pay cash for hotels, tickets and other things you’ll still need ID which means you can be tracked regardless of how you pay and we don’t know the extent of the government’s record keeping about these things especially in the cheap computer age where a lot of data can be stored and all sorts of records can be cross linked and any inconsistancies looked at more carefully.
What if you want to buy a car? It’s going to look a little suspicious to carry $50k in a bag into a dealership and pay in cash and all titles are recorded. You can pay by bank cheque but even here a larger amount of cash is recorded when you get the cheque. It’s not illegal but who knows who may look at it and start looking up other things about you.
Sure, you can use cash if you want to go out and buy a few thousand in clothes or a laptop etc but any sort of life above some minimal level where you want to hide “off the books” income is going to take some knowledge and planning. Even if you’re not trying to hide anything from the IRS you may still want to hide it from a wife and that too will take brains.
You’re right about married men though, they never seem to have any money. Even wealthy married men can be in debt because the female’s spending habits increase faster than the income.
Don’t marry, there’s no benefit for a man in marriage and it’s all liability. If you are one of these crazy guys who has some uncontrolable compulsion to marry then at least be sure that the female has no debts and has assets equal to yours to put in the pot so if you divorce two years alaer all she’ll get is what she put in when the common property is divided.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 9, 2011 at 16:38

Ted October 9, 2011 at 16:09

@David
“The co-operative is not the spouse, and formally would probably be deemed a landlord.”

Not exactly. A co-op still has to buy the property in some name and it would have to be a corp. which issues shares to its members. Why would some man put money into something unless he was guaranteed it would be safe? Let’s say that 10 men decided to buy 10 row houses and each one had the right to occupy one. They still have to pay for the property and have the deed in some individul or corporate name. Even in a cheap area that property will cost perhaps $3m which means that each must put up $300k If it’s a corp. you will get 10% of the shares and it doesn’t matter what original par value you set because if a wife is able to get half of your assets the court is going to assess your shares at current market value so you’re either going to have to sell you shares to come up with $150k o pay her.
And btw, most Manhattan buildings are co-ops and operate just like these co-ops that people have been talking about here. You buy shares and receive a proprietary lease on the unit you bought.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 9, 2011 at 21:38

@David
‘The first part of making group-sized co-operatives work is forming the group, with other men worth trusting’

That’s a bit naive. We operate under law and contracts where everyone knows their rights and duties.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 9, 2011 at 22:09

@69-why are you wasting any time with Nolan? For all you know the guy may be insane and living in some fantasy world he created. For all you know he may have made his whole story up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
CorkyAgain October 9, 2011 at 23:28

@69-why are you wasting any time with Nolan? For all you know the guy may be insane and living in some fantasy world he created. For all you know he may have made his whole story up.

To be honest, the same can be said about everyone else here. Some of them might be more obviously insane than others — but, y’know, it’s the ones who hide their insanity the best that you should really be worried about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
Rusty October 10, 2011 at 16:01

Co-ops are have been used successfully by farmers for a very long time. Credit unions are co-ops of a sort, as are condo and homeowners’ associations. Communal living has been practiced successfully by communities for years, such as in old Russia and medievil Europe, and today by Amish, Mennonite, and old-style Mormon communities. They are not necessarily right- or left-wing, pro- or anti-capitalistic, or Marxist, though they are a fairly good check on rapacious capitalism and hostile governments. A cooperative can be set up in multiple layers, with members running their own homeschooling co-ops, credit unions, HOA, etc., or joining existing ones. They work to the degree that they are ethnically (racially, culturally, etc.) homogenous and to the degree that the membership wants them to work; quality membership and good leadership are essential.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
Common Monster October 16, 2011 at 06:57

Davd – great little tutorial.
My paternal grandmother was named Freida, too.

One of the many problems w/Marriage 2.0 is it’s fundamentally an adhesion contract. It is fraudulent labelling calling what one signs a license, because there’s nothing you can do married that you can’t do unmarried!

Men tend not to find this out until the prospect or actuality of Divorce 2.0 enters the picture. So that should definitely be part of any warning label.

I think lots of men get trapped in marriage because the costs of terminating their membership in the “cooperative” are too high. (It’s almost like getting stuck in a vacation timeshare – what you’d thought was beneficial ownership turns out to be a liability (via the maintenance fees) you can’t terminate, or you can only get out of by buying your freedom back. And you forfeit what you thought was the principal ‘product’, namely your kids – who are then converted into another liability, one which you can’t buy your way out of.

Perhaps Marriage 0.0 or 1.0 was something like a cooperative venture, but 2.0 depends on bamboozling men to get them into it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
AB October 19, 2011 at 19:20

I would dearly love to hear PAN’s ‘keys.’ Any one care to help me out?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Masaru October 23, 2011 at 15:28

What’s being described here is similar to what I’ve seen immigrant workers do as they get started out in the US. Very effective if you have the right people involved.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: