Thanks for taking your time to respond to my query.
While I agree with you that individual rights in any collective should be taken very seriously, I also believe that this applies to every member of that collective, not just "trouble makers." There is a difference between a trouble maker and a thug in my book. Trouble makers upset others to advance what they believe is a common good. Thugs upset others to take advantage of them and advance their own selfish interests. Therefore, protecting trouble makers benefits, in a long run, other members of the collective, because it benefits the collective as a whole. OTOH, protecting thugs not only hurts other members of the collective, but also uses collective as a prison that prevents them from defending themselves against thugs. In such a situation, the cooperative de facto undermines security of other members who are affected by actions of thugs.
I understand that distinguishing between trouble makers and thugs may be difficult in practice. However, I am talking here about principles. The application of these, or for that mattter any principles always carries a risk of misinterpretation or abuse - but that is NOT a reason for rejecting these principles; it calls for a due process, not immunity from any sanctions.
You also srgue that coop should educate its members. I agree. In fact our coop does quite a bit of education. However, I fundamentally disagree with your assumption that proper education will put all members on the same page, agreeing to act in concert to protect their individual and collective interests.
While most people are rational, there are different types of rationality as a result of different cognitive framing - and as a result there will always be disagreements of what is and what is not in best common interests. One person's best solution is another person's belly laugh.
I agree with you that cooperative is primarily an economic institution serving its members, rather than religion trying to "save" the humankind. I belive that any attempt to save the humankind from its own vices is a bunch of crock in general, and it is even a bigger bunch of crock when such attempt are made by a limited-purpose economic instituion, such as housing coop. There will always be stupid, lazy, selfish and mean people - even under socialism. Let's accept that fact instead of deluding ourselves to "save" these people against their own will.
This attempt to impose one's vision of morality on other people is perhaps the most annoying aspect of religion (especially x-tianity) - and it would be equally annoying if applied to a cooperative. Giving people a chance and protecting them from arbitrary sanctions is one thing, but expecting that everyone can be "saved" and molded into a moral ideal prescribed by x-tianity, buddhism or socialism is not only unrealistic but dangerous.
To summarize, the fact that landlords often abuse tenants is not a good reason for altogether abandoning the principle of sanctions against tenants in a coop. There are not only some bad landlords, but also some bad tenants. Coops may eliminate the former, but not the lattter. Therefore, ther must be a due process that protecs the coop agains such bad tenants/members, including expulsion, if necessary.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com