i can prove you wrong:
FIRST, WORKER OWNED COOPS:
the only difference between worker owned coops and for-profit corps is that they function to pad the pockets of the employees rather than the CEOs and stock holders (sunkiss, dairygold and wilco are good examples of this). they do also put a lot of focus on employee benefits and wellbeing, but that's only because the owners are the employees, they cannot be trusted to function in the best interest of all humanity or the environment because of their focus on profit. please forgive me for not clarifying the difference between non-profit worker operated coops, non-profit member operated coops and for profit coops. i do not support for-profit coops.
the focus of my statements was non-profit businesses and their ability to correct the horrifically negative consequences of the control major selfish forces have had over the entire world since time eternal. first kings, then religions, then governments, banks and corporations (or whatever other forms). not that some kings, or operators of governments, banks, and corporations havent also been fairly philanthropic; what i'm saying is that that the focus of these things has overwhelmingly been used to gratify the needs of the few over the many, despite whatever intentions they may have had to begin with or how they may have supposed to have worked. and this is because of the built in ability of these systems to be used for selfish pursuits.
non-profits can, undoubtedly, be designed easily to do just the opposite... to enforce civil service and accountability despite the financial cost. mind you the financial cost does not include the true cost; which requires the consideration of the consequences of all actions while defining the value of a product: be that product energy itself, a tangible object, or a social service.
the accountability built into a true non-profit would force it to continuously work to better define the true cost of a product and make sure that it's customers are paying for what they use.
SECOND, FACTORS:
in the scheme of things, i allow for the use of both customer operated and also employee operated non-profits, since i don't believe all products need to be developed with the direct influence of the customer. in fact, i believe that some businesses would be hindered by the need for their influence.
a good example might be an agency that's designed to develop and maintain, as well as continuously improve, a satellite communications system. such a system would still need to be protected from vandals, despite how peaceful the world ever becomes there will always be somebody who gets a kick out of destroying other peoples things. such a system would also be so technically advanced that very few people not already working there would be able to understand enough about the technology to influence positive change in it's development. however all the details of the technology that didn't need to be protected from vandals should be available and open for discussion, just like the linux kernel and other opensource software. the internal business discussions would also be made public, after any details are removed that would make it easy for vandals to compromise the system.
so anybody could still influence the improvement of the technology, and anyone could also monitor their behavior as an institution and speak out if the organization started to overstep it's bounds and act in an irresponsible manner. and because the agency was bound by it's charter and fairly limited in size it would be fairly easy for a small coalition of people to organize against it, prove it's actions inappropriate--if they were so--and have the charter revoked.
also, the bylaws of the business charter itself would disallow for second chances for it's directors, should they be proven to have participated in any conspiracy to benefit anyone financially through either the action or inaction of the organization.
so both the governments judicial system as well as the bylaws that govern the organization could influence dire consequences should the organization fail to either change it's ways when it discovered a more efficient and sustainable way to do things, or if it at any point participates in a conspiracy to aid in the the financial profiteering of anyone, whomever they may be.
CONCLUSION:
i could talk all day about the benefits of non-profits, and how we can use them. you obviously don't know enough about them, most people don't. my point is that because the businesses charter, it's constitution, can severely constrain it's ability to do harm, as well as the ability of it's employees or members to allow it to do harm--either through action or inaction--it's the only foreseeable solution to the problems we see in the world today.
we cannot continue to fight a legal battle between what are supposed to be selfless governments and selfish corporations, our entire existence as a species is at risk.
the rules i've set forth for any non-profit cooperative to use to ensure the safety of our planets future are sound. they are like the three laws governing robots as designed by issac asimov, they're very simple. but they need to be elaborated on during their incorporation into a businesses charter, to account for the specific purpose and location of the business
rule 1. sustainability: a true non-profit must not, through action or inaction, harm the environment.
protecting the environment is paramount if humanity is to survive indefinitely. not that we can guarantee that humanity will survive indefinitely, but we can at least assume at this point that we can and should refrain from causing our own extinction. which is what will eventually occur if we continue to destroy the very systems that sustain us.
we are also a part of our environment, so rule 1 would require protection for it's employees from harm by the organization and it's operators (healthcare, fair labor practices, high safety requirements).
this would provides relief for our environment and the lack of a need for many nationally financed agencies that are constantly fighting a losing war against many billion dollar industries.
we don't need to continue chasing our own tails.
rule 2. cooperation: a true non-profit must allow for the cooperation of all of humanity in order to comply with rule 1.
this includes cooperating to produce goods, research technologies, govern the actions of the organizations, and research both the consequences of future and current practices.
this requires true and thorough organizational transparency, and the exclusive use of open source technology.
and this provides a lack of need for yet more government spending used to monitor businesses and how they function.
rule 3. accountability: a true non-profit must allow for it to easy be dismantled should it be proven incapable of continuing to manufacture it's product without violating rule 1 or rule 2.
proper dismantling requires the redistribution of assets to other non-profit organizations or to the government. redistribution can included the donation of assets to a new organization designed specifically to replace the old. however the old organization must technically be dissolved completely.
this manner of accountability requires that the old model be thrown out completely and a new organization be formed completely from the ground up. even though it can still use the same facilities and personnel as the first.
this is an adaption of the recycling process.
and this guarantees obviously that if a product, be it a tangible item or a social service cannot be produced without direct harm to people or the environment, or without being done so while under public scrutiny, than it need not be produced.
rule 4. optional (depending on national laws): a true non-profit must only function to produce a limited spectrum of products for a specific and small group of people.
this rule really needs to be rewritten depending on where it's to be used. some nations don't require that a non-profit limit it's membership base to a small enough size to guarantee that the first 3 rules are followed. and there isn't a simple number of people any non-profit organization can attend to efficiently... but before a charter is accepted as complete it's maximum possible size should be defined within the charter.
this can also be rewritten to insist that one organization doesn't control too many aspects within any single industry, thereby limiting the possibilities of the industry.
the united states has laws limiting what a non-profit organization can do and how many people it can serve, and for the most part those laws are probably sufficient. but in order to maximize the potential for innovation and productivity it only makes sense to thoroughly distribute the responsibility of producing most goods and services throughout a very diverse and widespread group of people.
plus limiting size is probably also necessary for rule 3 to be followed. and anyone seriously interested in doing good rather than making money can probably rewrite the wording of my rules to better suite their needs without jeopardizing their ability to produce an acceptable result.
so don't get on my about the vagueness of my optional rule 4.