Got one for ya... (Community Dilema)

[Didymus]

Within the confine of a five-person coop, your decisions should work OK. However, one, that is not the only decision possible, and, two, it is not a legal charter. In a country of more than 300 million people, direct democracy cannot work.

Ooooooohhhhh, that's why people were suspicious. No, I'm not trying to trick anyone into talking about direct democracy either. We're really talking about apples and chicken here. And honestly, I have a hard time believing that this is a worthy topic myself. But we've spent HOURS discussing this. Hours... re-freakin'-diculous.

 

[BigBarry]

You should all compromise and spend some money on weed.

 

[N4mddissent]

I live in a small religious community of volunteers. 5 of us share a house and volunteer full time at various non-profits in the area. We receive housing, a small personal stipend, and a food allowance. We have been purchasing food together and then splitting up whatever money is left over so that we can spend it on snacks and other things we might want for lunch etc.

Here's the (collective goods) problem:
Some people in the house are vegetarian, so there has been some discussion about whether or not the collective funds should be used to buy meat. But as it turns out, the vegetarians are ok with using the collective grocery money to buy meat. The issue is that some of us don't want to use the collective funds to buy fruit. The reasoning is that we should all pay for dinners together and divide the rest of the money to buy lunches ourselves so we have more flexibility in what we get to eat for lunch. Since the meat will be for dinners and fruit will be for lunches, fruit should not be purchased with the collective money (unless it's for a dinner dish that we will all share).

Does this sound reasonable?

My first question is the reasoning behind the collective purchasing. I assume it is because by pooling your money and buying groceries collectively is more efficient, more economical. If that is the case, then the situation depends greatly on available resources. If there is enough money to divide the non-dinner funds evenly, and everyone gets their choice for lunch, then that may be a way to allow the most freedom of choice. As a matter of fact, it would allow the most freedom if you stopped collectively buying dinner and everyone just ate what they wanted all of the time. If it is necessary to buy collectively for dinner, then I fail to see why only meat is bought for dinner. My personal preference would be to eat meat at every meal. But I understand my opinion isn't the only one. I just don't think there's enough information provided about the situation.

 

[BigBarry]

My personal preference would be to eat meat because he likes to contribute to deforestation and global warming. Plus, he's a fatso chicken slurper.

 

[amrchaos]

I live in a small religious community of volunteers. 5 of us share a house and volunteer full time at various non-profits in the area. We receive housing, a small personal stipend, and a food allowance. We have been purchasing food together and then splitting up whatever money is left over so that we can spend it on snacks and other things we might want for lunch etc.

Here's the (collective goods) problem:
Some people in the house are vegetarian, so there has been some discussion about whether or not the collective funds should be used to buy meat. But as it turns out, the vegetarians are ok with using the collective grocery money to buy meat. The issue is that some of us don't want to use the collective funds to buy fruit. The reasoning is that we should all pay for dinners together and divide the rest of the money to buy lunches ourselves so we have more flexibility in what we get to eat for lunch. Since the meat will be for dinners and fruit will be for lunches, fruit should not be purchased with the collective money (unless it's for a dinner dish that we will all share).

Does this sound reasonable?

But not everyone is eating meat,, and not everyone is eating Fruit. How about avoid buying Meat and Fruit at all times so the collective money will be spent on collective goods or divided evenly? That seems more logical to me.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You should all compromise and spend some money on weed.

But what will they eat when they get the munchies??

 

[trueblue]

I live in a small religious community of volunteers. 5 of us share a house and volunteer full time at various non-profits in the area. We receive housing, a small personal stipend, and a food allowance. We have been purchasing food together and then splitting up whatever money is left over so that we can spend it on snacks and other things we might want for lunch etc.

Here's the (collective goods) problem:
Some people in the house are vegetarian, so there has been some discussion about whether or not the collective funds should be used to buy meat. But as it turns out, the vegetarians are ok with using the collective grocery money to buy meat. The issue is that some of us don't want to use the collective funds to buy fruit. The reasoning is that we should all pay for dinners together and divide the rest of the money to buy lunches ourselves so we have more flexibility in what we get to eat for lunch. Since the meat will be for dinners and fruit will be for lunches, fruit should not be purchased with the collective money (unless it's for a dinner dish that we will all share).

Does this sound reasonable?

You say the meat is purchase for meals eaten collectively and fruit for meals eaten individually, but the same is not true for consumption. If the vegetarians pay for meat they don't eat then it is only fair for the non-vegetarians to pay for fruit they won't eat. Otherwise, the best solution is for the group only to buy what everyone in the group eats-- and it sounds like neither fruit nor meat fall into that category.

But if it were me, I'd just eat fruit with my dinner. It's healthier, and who can resist a good watermelon?

 

[JBeukema]

I still vote for eating the vegetarians