His remarks, however, are not themselves immune to additional scrutiny. What prevents Joel from a clear understanding of this point is his bluring of the distinction between persons and shares. So it is not necessarily easier to corral a majority in a joint stock company unless you buy the controlling interest. And a coop is no more a democracy that is a joint stock corporation until we define democracy. This seems to me a primary distinction and one well worth preserving in understanding the difference between economic and political life in democracies.
Ownership is always optional, but citizenship is one's birthright.
Coops organize themselves around persons rather than shares to obviate the possibility of any one member buying the organization's decisions. Oddly enough, money does not play a more important role in investor owned firms than in coops, it plays a different role. In return for freedom from the consequences of their own behavior, they promise to provide some unspecified social good the corporations' owners could not entirely appropriate. This process was already easily identifiable in the 18th century. I'm sorry I cannot say some of my best friends are joint stock companies.