Forming an Intentional Community/split

[Vonbrown]

So what philosophy do you think "this gang" would come up with? I'm curious what sort of organizational facilities and rules low-budget nomads would find attractive in a home base...?

It's not a "gang", it's a community.

 

[Sky]

How about this. The real enemy we're fighting is "Big". Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Real Estate and so on. Capitalism at its worst, that sees profit as the real point of everything, and the survival and flourishing of human beings (or the planet, or any other living thing) as not particularly necessary, rather than the other way around. I think it's poisoned our government as well as our way of thinking about each other.

I do not believe "if you can't beat em, join em." But I'm also not sure Revolution is very likely or even possible at this point. What I believe is that the whole Big structure is so clumsy and impersonal that it might be possible to use it, to game it, quietly. If ten of us band together and own a house, no matter how unattractive it is, we can all park vehicles on the land. The laws are there to be loopholed. If you and I share an insurance policy, it means you have to trust me and vice versa, but it also means we save 30%. Will we always get our own way? Might I wind up paying $5 for roadside assistance I don't want because you do? Cooperation is not always delightful. But cooperation without competition, cooperation with a genuine belief that net benefit to Us together is better than you and I separately, even if we make concessions, might just be the way to ... lol. To Stick It To The Man.

Gotta love that. Cooperation does take more effort for us less we are outrunning a predator historically but these days, sigh ??~ well I seriously believe that the more people who wake up from zombie-dumb and loose more and more, there may just be a chance to get through the pearly gates and break onto the other side or as you so happily said.'stick it to the man' the plantation owners. Hey twer I sharing an auto insurance policy I'd be happy to pay the extra $5 compared to the amount of inconvenience if the other person has an expensive faulted accident. lol

 

[Frood]

Getting a group of nomads together to buy a block of properties in an affordable area isn't entirely far-fetched. Then, once you have enough people you need to incorporate the area as a new city/township or equivalent. My city did this back in the early 1980's... Moreno Valley, CA... The City of Industry in LA county is a prime example of controlled regulation of an area by landowners using incorporation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Industry,_California3,000 business, 67,000 employees, but only 200 something residents. **I believe they are all relatives of the families that were the original stakeholders.** edit: the preceding seems incorrect upon further research. It doesn't change the fact that the large city is controlled by a very small number of people. I just can't confirm their inter-connectedness.

It would take some research on what is required to incorporate as a city, but once incorporated then the bylaws could implement the requirements and zoning regulations in the articles of incorporation. Most cities do this to regulate and implement the centralized resources for sanitation, power, or other aspects of the city but I don't see why a city couldn't be founded based on nomad-friendly grounds. I think this would have to be a city founded by nomads because the stereotype of most nomads turns the stereotype sticks-and-bricks dweller into a raging NIMBY-ist.

And on a related tangent I came across this fascinating document... I can't vouch for the accuracy of it though.
https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/GARM/Ch9GARM.pdf

 

[rruff]

Capitalism is not the problem. Every developed country in the world is capitalist and regulated by government. How it is regulated is the place we should focus attention. Things like freedom, prosperity, safety, the general welfare, and the pursuit of happiness... for everyone!... are good things to keep in mind.

Bigness isn't necessarily a problem. There are significant economies of scale in many industries. The problem occurs when "bigness" co-opts the government to reduce or eliminate competition, creating a virtual monopoly... squeezing out the little guys.

Which brings us to competition... which is actually very necessary. People in any business cooperate in order to compete with other businesses for sales. A commune may be 100% cooperative among themselves, but when they trade outside their enclave for things that they can't produce there, they are naturally in competition with others who are selling similar products. If you produce inefficiently or your products are subpar or they are overpriced, then you won't do very well.

Turning back the clock 300 years and being self-sufficient with a little garden/farm is fine if you are ok with working hard and being poor, like people were then. The people I've talked to who advocate such things think they should be able to live this way and afford all the things everyone else has. But this isn't the fault of "the system", "the man", or a great conspiracy, this is just reality. People were poor back then because it took a lot of human labor to produce anything. The true cost of everything is the aggregate labor that goes into making it. If you use the same methods, you should expect a similar result. Actually you will live better now! But don't expect too much...

 

[RonDean]

Capitalism is not the problem. Every developed country in the world is capitalist and regulated by government. How it is regulated is the place we should focus attention. Things like freedom, prosperity, safety, the general welfare, and the pursuit of happiness... for everyone!... are good things to keep in mind.

Bigness isn't necessarily a problem. There are significant economies of scale in many industries. The problem occurs when "bigness" co-opts the government to reduce or eliminate competition, creating a virtual monopoly... squeezing out the little guys.

Which brings us to competition... which is actually very necessary. People in any business cooperate in order to compete with other businesses for sales. A commune may be 100% cooperative among themselves, but when they trade outside their enclave for things that they can't produce there, they are naturally in competition with others who are selling similar products. If you produce inefficiently or your products are subpar or they are overpriced, then you won't do very well.

Turning back the clock 300 years and being self-sufficient with a little garden/farm is fine if you are ok with working hard and being poor, like people were then. The people I've talked to who advocate such things think they should be able to live this way and afford all the things everyone else has. But this isn't the fault of "the system", "the man", or a great conspiracy, this is just reality. People were poor back then because it took a lot of human labor to produce anything. The true cost of everything is the aggregate labor that goes into making it. If you use the same methods, you should expect a similar result. Actually you will live better now! But don't expect too much...

I don't want to get too far down the "ism" rabbet hole, but every country I know of is some % of almost every "ism" you can name. None of them are 100% anything. And they can all be workable or not - depending on how they are run. I suppose that could also be applied to the sort of thing we are talking about here.

That said, my goals are a lot lower than fixing society. I would join or invest in a group/spot that was something like a Cheap 1000 Trails. Allow older RVs, keep rules reasonable, keep fees as low as possible, and that's sort of IT. I don't want to live there full time or forever. It would be a place for NOMADS to rest occasionally. I guess it could also provide a mailbox for mail and packages. Maybe just a place to find friends and share help with one another.

An occasional community of travelers.

 

[JDub]

Capitalism is not the problem. Every developed country in the world is capitalist and regulated by government. How it is regulated is the place we should focus attention. Things like freedom, prosperity, safety, the general welfare, and the pursuit of happiness... for everyone!... are good things to keep in mind.

Bigness isn't necessarily a problem. There are significant economies of scale in many industries. The problem occurs when "bigness" co-opts the government to reduce or eliminate competition, creating a virtual monopoly... squeezing out the little guys.

Which brings us to competition... which is actually very necessary. People in any business cooperate in order to compete with other businesses for sales. A commune may be 100% cooperative among themselves, but when they trade outside their enclave for things that they can't produce there, they are naturally in competition with others who are selling similar products. If you produce inefficiently or your products are subpar or they are overpriced, then you won't do very well.

Turning back the clock 300 years and being self-sufficient with a little garden/farm is fine if you are ok with working hard and being poor, like people were then. The people I've talked to who advocate such things think they should be able to live this way and afford all the things everyone else has. But this isn't the fault of "the system", "the man", or a great conspiracy, this is just reality. People were poor back then because it took a lot of human labor to produce anything. The true cost of everything is the aggregate labor that goes into making it. If you use the same methods, you should expect a similar result. Actually you will live better now! But don't expect too much...

"The Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes lays it out pretty well. "Life is nasty, brutish, and short" - et al

Cheers.

 

[wanderlust]

Excellent book explaining how economy works, the history of economic thinking (since Medieval Ages), and the terminology, is Economix . Author got all the classic economy books, and went to India for few years to read and digest them all, while living on $10 a day. Explains the role of the regulation in capitalism, and who benefits when regulation is weakened (you guessed it, fat cats who spend millions on lobbyist to get the regulation weakened).

 

[Carla618]

How about this. The real enemy we're fighting is "Big". Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Real Estate and so on. Capitalism at its worst, that sees profit as the real point of everything, and the survival and flourishing of human beings (or the planet, or any other living thing) as not particularly necessary, rather than the other way around. I think it's poisoned our government as well as our way of thinking about each other.

I don't think capitalism poisoned our government. Our government has been allowing private interests to go unchecked for far too long. Lobbyists have too much access and influence. And our government (those we elect) allow it. They don't vote for what the majority of people want... statistically. So, we are as much at fault as those we elect and the corporations. Because we vote these folks into office.

 

[wanderlust]

Because we vote these folks into office.

We are getting dangerously close into politics, and I want to avoid it, so only this:

One of the biggest problems with current politics is that before we can select the people who will represent us, politicians will select the district - politicians select the voters who will be voting for them.

With computer-aided gerrymandering, politicians know EXACTLY who will win the elections, and only challenge is to win the primaries (where only 5% most extreme voters participate), so extreme politicians are representing both parties, and nothing can be accomplished.

 

[txmnjim]

Capitalism is not the problem. Every developed country in the world is capitalist and regulated by government. How it is regulated is the place we should focus attention. Things like freedom, prosperity, safety, the general welfare, and the pursuit of happiness... for everyone!... are good things to keep in mind.

Bigness isn't necessarily a problem. There are significant economies of scale in many industries. The problem occurs when "bigness" co-opts the government to reduce or eliminate competition, creating a virtual monopoly... squeezing out the little guys.

Which brings us to competition... which is actually very necessary. People in any business cooperate in order to compete with other businesses for sales. A commune may be 100% cooperative among themselves, but when they trade outside their enclave for things that they can't produce there, they are naturally in competition with others who are selling similar products. If you produce inefficiently or your products are subpar or they are overpriced, then you won't do very well.

Turning back the clock 300 years and being self-sufficient with a little garden/farm is fine if you are ok with working hard and being poor, like people were then. The people I've talked to who advocate such things think they should be able to live this way and afford all the things everyone else has. But this isn't the fault of "the system", "the man", or a great conspiracy, this is just reality. People were poor back then because it took a lot of human labor to produce anything. The true cost of everything is the aggregate labor that goes into making it. If you use the same methods, you should expect a similar result. Actually you will live better now! But don't expect too much...

i think capitalism IS the problem but as folks are pointing out this isnt the forum for discussing politics and such. (btw i just mentioned intentional communities that i would like to possibly visit not that i would ever want to permanently live in such a community). there is much misinformation about early peoples and how much they worked, etc. marshall sahlins wrote a book called "the original affluent society" where he discounted the notion that early hunter-gatherers had to work so much. however, the book i'm reading now says far more about how we got "stuck" with such a global economic system and its called "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity" by Graeber&Wengrow. what i love about this book is how it is referenced and backed up by actual data and these authors are an anthropologist and an archaeologist! just discovering about Kondiaronk (1649-1701) a chief of the Hurons, and his oratory skills has been worth the price of admission for me

 

[rvwandering]

This has drifted too far into politics. I'm tempted to delete posts so please stay on the original topic - forming an intentional community.

 

[thebarefootbadger]

Sorry, I don't mean to get political, it's just in my nature to look very big picture. At the turn of the 20th century we chose a path of industry and innovation. It had some great benefits not just to Big business but to humanity in general - health, comfort, convenience, life expectancy. But I think we've got blinders on at this point, trammeling forward like lemmings in our drive for More when in fact we could easily be in maintenance mode at this point; our "progress" is starting to have diminishing returns to the point where it's going in reverse. The majority of humanity hold jobs that are not only soul-sucking and earth-damaging, they're honestly unnecessary except in terms of the need for personal capital circuitously created by this growth economy model.

So! I support that socialist ideal of working less, and more time for leisure and personal growth and expression. In my mind, IF society could wrap its collective head around that idea, we could live in sticks and bricks or in nomad caravans, share the necessary work, and not struggle to thrive.

Conversely, if we don't go in that direction, it's hard to imagine a nomadic IC that's not eventually overrun by someone's greed.

 

[egilbe]

Human nature is the problem. Some people follow, some people lead, some people control and take advantage of others. Some are lazy, some are dumb, some are smart. Some people just want to be left alone and live their own life. Some people seek spirituality, some people live to serve others. Its a rough mix to get people to intentionally live together in harmony. As a species, it's usually the competitive people who survive to succeed to reproduce. That selfishness and competitiveness is what drives our economy. Its why CEO's are inherently sociopaths.

I still like the idea of a Jeffersonian democracy. I'm not a big fan of what our nation has become.

 

[Cargo Margo]

I'm confused by what you mean by 'international community'. Every definition I look up is in vague geo-political terms.

Towns and cities are not usually communities but they contain communities. The small city I am in (pop. 8000) has Vietnamese, Hmong, Korean, Slovak, and Honduran communities. Common culture is the binder.

I've been part of a few intentional communities. When I was a kid we would go stay at a commune up in Connecticut in the summer. It was not only vegan, but raw food. Lots of sprouts and mushrooms. They even sold them in farmers markets and at a few markets.
Hated it, but I was a kid. These days it wouldn't be so bad.
Not sure where they got the land from. But they welcomed just about anybody if they worked the farm.

Later I was part of a performance space called 924 Gilman, Alternative Music Foundation and a couple other things.
We were all volunteer run, all ages, and had a long list of things not allowed. Most of it stuff like no racism/sexism/homophobia. But also no drugs or alcohol (all ages means we had under 18 people there).
We ran the place through monthly meetings where anyone could show up and vote.
Technically we had no hierarchy. But in practice one guy was mostly in charge of the sound equipment, I was mostly in charge of our concessions, some girl was in charge of the booking etc. It worked fine until some controversy happened. There was a huge brawl with nazi skinheads once. Another time there was a sexual assault that happened on our property. Both times we had long long meetings where people had to show up and say things to feel included. Then hours later we could vote on whatever we were going to do.
Mostly the meetings were for deciding budgets and whether certain repeat troublemakers would be banned.

Years after that I was part of a group of people who did very large campout/concert things on BLM land.
It would last 2 weeks at the longest, and like Burning Man we discouraged buying and selling at the event, encouraging barter.
My friend and I started it, but we kept everything democratic. Though I ended up footing the bill for a lot myself.

There are a lot more I could go into.
But the main point is that intentional communities, collectives etc work great for getting stuff done.
They all have a problem when a crisis occurs. There is no perfect decision making mechanism to solve this. Roberts Rules of order, direct democracy, unanimous consent, or modified unanimous consent all have flaws and come with their own problems.

I have an intentional community with my roommate and that's as large as it's gotten. She's taught me to have difficult conversations. I would think there would need to be a "training" of sorts on how to get along. I would love one based on the Celestine Prophecy Insights. It takes some personal growth to allow other's to mess up and grow as well. Just dreaming.

 

[bettersimplerlife]

A lot of these ideas have been tried before. With, shall we say, VARIED results. Israeli Kibbutzim are probably the most successful modern versions of "communal living". Some good recipes though!

http://www.kitchensisters.org/hidde...itchens/#symple-tab-barrel-style-dill-pickles
Cheers!

My antivirus prevented me for accessing that website because it is infected with a virus. Just an fyi.

 

[Ripper238]

We seem to have forgotten how successful communities/tribes have been. None of it has to do with politics, nor it it relevant to 100 acres in the middle of nowhere with no restrictions. The most successful tribes have been around for tens of thousands of years and they helped create the US and the constitution. Our problem is all the garbage piled on top of the constitution and our increasing laziness.

A simple set of guidelines and the support of all can create a great community.

 

[AmargosaWayne]

My antivirus prevented me for accessing that website because it is infected with a virus. Just an fyi.

Opened fine with Palemoon on a Debian virtual machine.

It might be blocked because it mentions some good things about Russia. /sarc

 

[wanderlust]

tribes have been around for tens of thousands of years and they helped create the US and the constitution.

That was all before land use regulation and house building codes. Now, in many/most places, even tiny homes are illegal (house is required to have minimal footage).

Bureaucrats are not interesting to have your community with your rules, they want to force their own vision (obviously the only correct one!) to everyone. HOA can regulate how you paint your fence, and what kind of drapes you have in your windows. So when buying a land anywhere, be extra careful and read the fine print - they likely do not allow what you want, unless it is standard run-of-the-mill house like everyone else has.

 

[jacqueg]

I've been thinking long and hard about this all my adult life.

I've tried intentional communities, but ultimately never do well in them, because I am essentially a hermit. I can live peaceably in almost any situation, but sooner or later, someone(s) want you to PARTICIPATE ALL THE TIME. And I just don't wanna. I'll put in my share of the money, and my share of the work, but otherwise, please leave me alone.

For me, anyway, the answer to this would be to come into enough money to buy an old, run-down trailer park full of single-wides, and gradually convert it to a community. Zoning and services already in place. Kind of what these folks did with an old apartment complex - only not so grandiose. https://www.kailashecovillage.org. I especially liked their approach toward the existing tenants when they bought the place.

I think it is really HARD to run a community as a group. I'd be much more comfortable with a single person or small group that is really in charge. With substantive community input of course, and clear legal rental agreements, but in the end, the final decision is not up to the group as a whole. More like a benevolent dictatorship.

 

[Ripper238]

That was all before land use regulation and house building codes. Now, in many/most places, even tiny homes are illegal (house is required to have minimal footage).

Bureaucrats are not interesting to have your community with your rules, they want to force their own vision (obviously the only correct one!) to everyone. HOA can regulate how you paint your fence, and what kind of drapes you have in your windows. So when buying a land anywhere, be extra careful and read the fine print - they likely do not allow what you want, unless it is standard run-of-the-mill house like everyone else has.

Nope, still the case. Tribes are sovereign.

But yeah, tons of regulations in many states. HOA's are terrible, I don't understand why one would live in one. But plenty of states with little to no forced regulations, but many wouldn't want to live there. lol