So, why and how would I, as a farmer in a country where alternative arrangements are viewed positively right now in official discourse, get involved with another group offering a form a financing my investment instead of just going to traditional money lenders?

You currently borrow money - if you can - at interest in order to buy goods and services you need.

In the 'guarantee society' model your suppliers provide the goods and services on interest-free credit terms, and you give them your IOU based upon your capacity to provide 'money's worth' at some point in the future.

The result is that there are open 'bilateral' credit balances between you and your suppliers which are supported by the 'guarantee society' agreement.

Both you, and they, pay an amount into a 'default fund' in common ownership (a custodian) for as long as you have a positive or negative balance. This is a payment for the use of the collective guarantee.

Participants also pay a service charge to a service-provider-formerly-known-as-a-bank who administers the system; sets guarantee limits for sellers and buyers; manages defaults.

Essentially the outcome is an open-ended overdraft at the option of the finance user. Defaults can only be in respect of exceeding the credit/guarantee limit although it would be possible to mandate - in addition to the guarantee charge and service charge - a minimum payment.

Those with debit balances may settle balances bilaterally by providing money or money's worth to suppliers.

Those with credit balances have an incentive to spend, since they pay for the use of the guarantee as well.

This is of course the same Gesellian approach proposed by Keynes for positive AND negative Bancor balances in his Bancor/ International Clearing Union, except that there was a central issuer of 'fiat' Bancors.

Alternatively, your suppliers may in turn obtain goods and services elsewhere - thereby creating their own debit balances - and it is possible then for settlement 'chains' to take place eg A pays B pays C pays D pays A - which are identified by 'clearing agent' software like Ripple Pay.

This sort of settlement chain is precisely what happens now in Brent/BFOE forward crude oil contracts upon expiry when 'open' bilateral forward contracts are often netted out in this way. So called Brent Daisy Chains have been known to reach 100 links.

Such a guarantee society system could be started tomorrow.

Why would I have to set up a cooperative with my workers?  Is that really necessary to get this going, or just a progressive hand out to them?

At the moment your managers and staff are costs: I am not sure what incentives they have beyond a salary.

I don't see it as a 'hand out' if you both cut your overheads and give them the incentive of an equity share in the production. In a  bad year you share the pain, but conversely you don't get to keep all the fruits of a good year.

But my experience is that true 'co-ownership' will appeal to your staff as much as it does to (say) the John Lewis Partnership staff in the UK. I suspect the productivity will greatly increase if everyone feels they have genuine stake.

given the security of being paid weekly in dollars instead of the risky alternative of being a shareholder

It's not a matter of 'either/or'. Some (eg youngsters with no family) may opt to have a pure equity share: others may require a guaranteed minimum - which would come at the expense of part of their equity share.

It's entirely up to them and you to what extent they would opt in.

What exactly would be the service they would be providing in this arrangement, and how much do you expect they would have to be compensated?

See above. They would get agreed (on an 'open book' basis) costs covered, and would then receive a profit/surplus element paid from the bonus/ pool and based upon default experience.

Where do you identify the savings/benefits and how can we quantify them to compare them to traditional means that entrepreneurs have to finance their investments?

Firstly, there is no compound interest in the model.

Second, no deposits etc are required, and banking regulation (and all the crap that goes with it) does not come into it.

Third, the interests of the service provider are aligned with those of the service user, but it is not easy to quantify the benefit. Probably excessive management costs and empire building will be less likely.

Let's say a 1% charge is made per month to positive and negative balances. This would be pooled; then a % share would go to the service provider, and the balance would be distributed as a dividend to guarantee society members as they see fit.

This has the effect of compensating those who use less credit, but who still provide the guarantee.

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

But it's all relative, since you would be looking at how many year's worth of tax revenues could be monetised.

Such a land-backed State issued currency would principally be domestically acceptable or 'fungible'. Note here that I do not advocate any issue of currency by a State, since I regard State intermediation as just as much obsolete as private intermediation.

I would expect a currency based upon energy - and if an intermediary State is involved, upon a carbon levy/tax - to be another currency acceptable domestically. This would also be fungible beyond a country's borders within a suitable international clearing union.

But there's a difference between a currency - eg money's worth - and the value standard by which currencies are exchanged on credit terms.

Unfortunately the deficit-based currencies we are used to are not based upon tax revenues at all (except bank notes and coin) but are privately manufactured credit objects with very little value behind them at all.

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith