So a level playing field between for-profits and non-profits should make the corruption much more equitable. :-/
Sent from my iPhone On Jul 23, 2012, at 20:19, "David R. Block" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm having a little bit of trouble with non-profits that Lobby and contribute > to campaigns. Once elected, those who were contributed to make sure that > those non-profits stay tax-exempt as well. > > But that's not bribery or anything. Oh, no.... > > David > > The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are > willing to work and give to those who would not.—Thomas Jefferson > > On 7/23/2012 12:32 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote: >> I don't know if I buy their solution, but I agree we need better >> categories... >>> The old for-vs.-non-profit distinction now becomes a relatively minor one – >>> instead of a major difference in both the fundamental intent and control of >>> the organization, it’s simply a question of whether the organization has >>> taken on an investment obligation to better pursue its purpose. >>> >> E >> >> http://holacracy.org/blog/integrating-and-non-profit >> >> Integrating For- and Non-Profit >> >> Humans have a wonderful tendency to make distinctions where underlying >> reality has no such boundaries. Some of these distinctions prove useful for >> a time and become unquestioned givens – new definitions or categories that >> we believe are reflective of a fixed reality, rather than temporary >> constructs of human meaning-making. Eventually though, all distinctions >> outlive their usefulness – and when that happens, evolution’s challenge is >> to draw new boundaries to collapse and integrate what we previously thought >> of as fixed opposites. One such distinction I see as no longer useful is >> the divide between for-profit and non-profit organizations. >> >> We’re used to thinking of for-profit companies as existing to generate >> profits for shareholders, while non-profits exist to serve some social good. >> Our governmental and legal structures are all setup within this mindset. >> There are a few progressive movements today trying to add a third category >> of “for-benefit” companies, which exist for both purposes, yet that requires >> a more granular definition of what “social benefit” means – what to include >> and exclude. And that’s when things get messy, at least if we pay >> attention. When we follow this definition exercise to its >> logical conclusion, I think it reveals the limits of the entire distinction. >> >> As I see it, the vast majority of organizations today are already doing the >> work of the world. Virtually every one of them is already playing a role in >> unfolding evolution, advancing society, providing something the world needs >> – that’s already in their nature. Cotton was once limited to the garments >> of kings, and now it’s providing more sanitary clothing in the poorest >> African countries – and I doubt the for-profit cotton farmers and >> loom-makers that contributed to this evolution really had a conscious focus >> on this level of greater good. They just did the work reality called them >> to do – and that was of benefit. >> >> So, aside from fringe cases (the Enron’s of the world), how can we possibly >> make a reasonable distinction around which organizations are “doing social >> good” and which are “just generating profits”? What organization isn’t >> doing the work of the world in some way, to some degree? And what >> organization can afford to ignore profit – that is, an overall economic >> indicator of whether it’s building more value than it is consuming in the >> world? But instead of trying to define yet-another artificial category of >> the “for-benefit” company, perhaps we’d be better served by collapsing them >> all back into a single entity type that integrates all of these >> distinctions, and frees each organization to contribute to our shared >> journey to the best of its capacity. >> >> Holacracy enables this collapse and integration with its shift to a >> transpersonal model of organization. Whether or not there are investors >> involved, its organizing system aligns all activities around realizing the >> organization’s broader evolutionary purpose. This can be legally-encoded in >> an organization’s bylaws or similar governing documents, which will also >> shift the board from entirely shareholder representatives to a >> multi-stakeholder board that stewards the organization towards its purpose. >> Its structure also honors the need to optimize profits (in balance with >> other considerations). If investors are involved these profits provide them >> a needed return, and if no investors are involved then all profits can be >> reinvested in better pursuing the purpose. The old for-vs.-non-profit >> distinction now becomes a relatively minor one – instead of a major >> difference in both the fundamental intent and control of the organization, >> it’s simply a question of whether the organization has taken on an >> investment obligation to better pursue its purpose. >> >> With this shift in place, it is no longer relevant to talk about the >> “owners” of the organization, any more than it is relevant to discuss who >> owns you or me – we certainly do have economic responsibilities to the >> individuals and organizations that help fund our journey, but we are not >> owned by them, laboring simply to bolster their profits. And nor would it >> make sense for us to be – history has shown that relying on slave labor >> isn’t as economically advantageous as a free workforce. Holacracy offers >> this liberation to organizations doing the work of the world. Its >> self-organizing structures and integrative decision-making effectively frees >> an organization to govern itself, to find its own unique purpose and follow >> its higher calling. And, I believe, to generate better economic returns for >> those who provide needed resources along the way. >> >> Looking at the bigger societal picture, what might it look like to legally >> integrate this distinction between “for-profits” and “non-profits”, while >> capturing the wisdom of each? I think it looks like requiring corporations >> and other entities with limited liability protection (“personhood” status) >> to use a purpose-driven legal power structure, like Holacracy, in lieu of >> the current control paradigm as a condition of receiving personhood >> treatment. And what then would happen to the many societal systems designed >> to rebalance the externalities and injustices created by organizations >> pursuing profits at the expense of other important considerations? >> Environmental laws, labor laws, unions – all have their roots in >> compensating for the limits of the current paradigm, and a good >> percentage of lawsuits today are specifically to counteract for its unwanted >> side-effects. Once we legally orient around organizations as purpose-driven >> entities doing the work of the world, what old systems are no longer >> necessary… and what new ones might emerge? I’d sure like to find out… >> >> >> -- >> Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community >> <[email protected]> >> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism >> Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
