Combine on the Greens.

Combine on the Greens.
Singularly benefits driver of combine for comfort and entertainment advantages.

Coop handling the Greens’ affairs–seen as “what’s in it for me in a group setting”–requiring each and everyone of business for profit would concern themselves with the Greens for economic reasons amounting to their property values rising for their adjacent homes to the Greens.

However, although what was described was liberal economics–the “what’s in it for me,” that benefits the group; an opposing political influence would be for the coop, seen as a top-down decisionmaking operation of a few in power of an oligarchy who benefit themselves solely, At The Expense of the Workers or Members of the Coop!

This political communist approach makes different final decisions than a business approach using the liberal economic model on final decisions.

Should the Combine drop excessive oil on the Greens, And have to repeat it’s rounds to cut the lawn–the decision “to kill the grass” would be an executive decision of politics of an oligarchy organizational communist political structure within the coop, advocating for the liberal benefits of only one person–and additional benefits at the top of the political organizational structure–and a “losing out” by the members of the group seen by patches of dead grass throughout the commons area, thus devaluing the group’s economic value of their homes, while retaining political power at the top, and raising the worker driving the Combine as a “the Fame, and the Glory” of a leftest Hegelian nightmare described by Karl Popper, as the winner worker against the many.

On the other hand, if the driver of the combine is still economically and politically tied into the group, as a co-op democratic structure, giving political power to each and every one within the group–thus liberal economically in a group business setting that politically continues to invest in democratic political power of the group vote–giving the initiative for each and every member to investigate why the grass is dying in clumps.

Then one of the members of the Coop would be more likely to take the time to investigate the economic damage to the green, and this oligarchic communist stranglehold of the combine-damaging-the-Greens scenario could then be politically stopped, if upon discovering the nature of the damage by the combine of the Greens, the investigating member talks to other members of the group, whom then hold impromtu meetings of facts of damage to the Greens, and their frequency of damage by oil deposits onto the grass.

This can eventually lead to a political vote against any further economic damage of the Greens’ economic value itself, not just its association to adjacent property values; and the fight against a communist oligarchic executive “running the Greens ‘into the ground'” can opportunistically, be “cut off at the head, or at the top.”

What remains, is the charisma of the sole driver worker: Does he support the democratic, liberal nature of the Coop? Or does he feel inclined to answer only to the Executive managing the Coop’s decision whom, feels a driven political power of top-down decision-making process with the worker’s regard advocating for this top executive to “destroy the Commons’ value,” as a communist ideological power struggle against the masses, benefiting solely himself, and one worker, and no one else.

Thus the voting apparatus has to vote, also on whether the charisma of this sole combine driver ultimately serves the group of individuals of the Coop, or the power-seeking executive wishing to keep his power at the expense of the group of masses.

Soil-chemistry answers of using tons of fertilizer to offset the damage caused by the oil seeping into the Green’s soil serves as a solution at the expense of table water for drinking water.

Does it, in fact solve the erosion problem, or do the patches of dead grass remain?

Abraham Boulder. —-Keven.