Perfect Commune

Plenty of Diesel trucks and cars out there running on used fryer oil these days, sooo yea.
Home brewed vegetable oils might have other impurities which would need to be filtered out or washed out with lye or acid first (I'd go for the lye route myself as I'd like to be making tons of charcoal for primitive smelting, foundry work, glass and ceramics etc. and of course for Gardening too.)

 

Having like minded people does not mean that you have people who are following along with dogma.

There are of course rules that come along with it, but they are not rules of that are based on beleifs. Rather on ideas, such as not causing harm to others, not because some 'god' said you would burn in hell if you did, but simply because you wouldn't want someone else to do it to you.

When it comes to issues such as the diet a person has, their choices in terms of their relationship either with themselves or their god(s), their style of dress or even just thier music, those are not things to build a community around.

To me, you build it around people who look at ideas for what they are, ideas to think about, and evaluate them for themselves without regard to what they are supposed to (or not supposed to) think according to others and then can discuss it and then incorporate it, or not, into their own ideas.

People who will wake up and look around and find something to do, because it needs to be done, without looking for others to tell them it has to be done.

Also, it's not a random grouping of people we are talking about here. It is people who choose to find a place thats suitable to them where they are sutiable to who is there.

I don't know if that actually gets across what I mean. Having an individual who fit in perfectly in terms of personality whose life passion is welding would be a good thing. Having 20 of them wouldn't. A commune has to be made up of people who each have life passions that work together to accomplish the whole.

One person loves gardening, one loves chickens, another pigs, one loves drawing and planning, one loves writing and talking, one loves working on mechanical stuff and so on... so that each person, following their passion in life, supports the others who are doing the same in return. When there is something that needs to be done that requires more then one person, there are others who are around to help will in the end, benefit from it either indirectly (say building a barn for pigs and then sharing in the meat), or directly, such as working on a community firepit and bbq area. That in no way implies there can't be doubling up on efforts (such as two people loving gardening), just that there needs to be a mix of individuals following their passions.

Having free thinkers is not the same as having anarchists.

 

Good thoughts Tom. I agree 'Free thinkers dont equal anarchists'. I've seen some of your writing. I like what your trying to do.Think about this; the farm's built, the crops are harvested, wood cut, etc..then what?
A perfect commune has to have a foundation. Not one built of stone and cement. There has to be goals that arent just tasks, projects, tangibles. There needs to be a higher purpose. A purpose that's greater then any one individual.
The perfect commune will be formed by people who are most importantly forming themselves.

 

YAY! Kinda found it!! Well, a friend from a Gardening forum with 5 acres who's put a bunch of years into researching Agriculture and cross breeding of plants in such a way as to make them more suited to the local climate, and who needs someone with my Tech skillset to build it out!! About all that's done so far is he has laid out the landscape, chosen which tree's go and which stay, decided what goes where once it's built.
And theres plenty of rocks metal ores in the area too so I dont have to skip a beat on the goal of making Jewelery.

Off grid for starters but once I settle in we'll change that to a degree with our own power sources and so forth so we can at least have juice for the Internet and maybe a power tool here or there.

Plans down the road to acquire more land and expand, possibly develop into an actual commune of sorts over the next handful of years,,, we'll see, but it's sounding pretty promising so far. And it's Zone 6b so not too horribly cold.

Just had ta' let it out and share. :cheers2:

 

There may need to be a higher purpose for followers, but the whole point of this is that people should be able to come together without 'a higher purpose' as glue... Unless you want to call living the life of an Individual to be a higher purpose.

I don't need to look around here and say to myself, "I am building a place where vegetarians, or gay people, or even young people, where they can come and be together with other just like them". A) I don't care about those issues... not in other peoples lives anyway and B) people can change...

Look at vegetarianism as an example. I've seen it suggested (and used) in a couple of different scenarios as a focus for a commune style place. What happens if in 5 years, after working and building stuff there, you decide you want a burger? Doesn't matter why, or if it is only going to be a one time thing, the point is you may want one.

Are you willing to give up 5 years of work in order to have it? Are you willing to lie to have it? Are you willing to put yourself in a position where you give other people that type of control over your life?

Each day that passes in a place that has a 'higher purpose' you have less freedom. Each day, the amount of work you put into the place grows and you end up chaining yourself there.

Ask yourself why you need anything more then a place you can live your own life and share the workload of doing it.

More importantly, why would you put yourself in the position where by your own effort, you become trapped between a choice of losing years worth of work or giving up the freedom to make choices about your own life?

What if it wasnt on something like vegetarianism, what if it was on being gay as was suggested... Where is the difference in having a community where you must be gay, and one where you must be straight (conventional society). Obviously there is the orientation difference, but they are both based on intolerance...

Is intolerance okay if it happens to match your own intolerances?

 

I's say the only intolerance allowed would be that sin or offense that could put the commune in jeopardy. If a person is violent and strikes another. I would be intolerant of that behavior so one rule or principle would be non violence. Alcohol tolerance is a biggie when it comes to communes. I liked what the one poster said, "only drugs or drink that we make ourselves is allowed".

 

So... a meth lab is okay to set up then if someone choose to?

That is what the problem is with making rules that regulate peoples behaviors...

As to the violence thing... what happens when one of the people is the type to keep looking for a persons buttons to see if they can piss them off... It isn't violence, but it is initiating it... To blame the person who has been provoked, goes against the whole point of getting away from the bullshit of conventional life...

If something jeopardizes the saftey or the security of it, then it should not be allowed... Just who decides what causes jeopardy?

If you get caught growing weed, and they can prove it was for resale (whether it was or not), they can confiscate the property...

If a person is smoking weed (or doing any other 'illicit' drug, that gives the cops a reason to kick the doors in...

If you aren't paying taxes, (even personal income tax), they can come after anything you own... if they try to say you are part owner of the commune and get away with it, they can force the sale of the property to pay for what you owe...

If you look at a locals wife (or daughter, sister, etc) wrong, you could bring the wrath of a redneck hillbilly clan down on the commune...

So, as I said... who decides what is causing jeopardy?

The basic principals of what you mean can be set out... but they will never actually represent the reality of what is going on. That discrepency between ideals and reality, destroy a lot of these projects before they get very far.

 

I'd think 'group conscious' would be the ultimate authority and judge. Not one person or leader. The issue of individuals risking the communes property by doing something to bring the cops like a meth lab or pot patch. That should be covered in a contract or lease between the individual and the commune. Might want to record each members lease with the court house. Number one is protecting the commune and her members.

 

Let's see if I get this straight... if a person wants to have a meth lab, they can, as long as they have a legal lease agreement or contract?

"Come on all, let's go form a commune, first stop... the court house"?

As for the group consensus (which is what I think you meant) thing, I almost agree with that... with a few conditions...

it must be amongst the group of permanent members, with non-members having a right to speak but not having an actual vote on anything... (that brings up the issue of what defines a permanent member vs a guest as well as length of membership, ie a member who has been working for 10 years to build it all, may not appreciate hearing that a new member has as much say over things as they do)...

it is also under the assumption that each member, has put in an equal amount to get to where it is... as in, if the property costs 50k and each puts up 10k, it works fine... but what if one person puts up 25k, or what if one person already has the property? Do you think it would be right for 4 people who invested nothing, to be able to tell a 5th who invested everything what they could and couldn't do? What about 4 who invested $6250 vs one who invested 25k? What about future members who come in with nothing?

 

Okay, instead of looking at theory, let's look at some reality...

Here we sit on our property, that we paid for, that we have been working on for two years.

Say you were to come along... How do we calculate your investment?

Do you put one third of the money that has been spent and owe for the hours that you haven't put in so far? Any other number, and you would not be investing as a full partner.

Of course we could say that in theory, we don't want any more then a dozen permanent members here... there are two now, so there would be ten shares left, each at 8.33%, there is still the matter of the last two years worth of work and investment above and beyond the purchase to consider...

What happens in 10 years when the 12th person finally joins? Do they pay a value based on what was paid for the property plus all the monies invested since as well as a cost for the labour that has been put into it?

Now stop and think about this for a minute...

There you are (not you specifically, a hypothetical you) renting an apartment, working a minimum wage job that is eating your soul...

Someone offers you a place to build a small home of some type, a place to grow your own food and friends to be amongst... and the first thing you say is... I want a contract...

Reverse that... you spent years getting to where you had a place in the country, and offered to share it with people who wanted to build a small home and share in the work... and someone came along and said, okay, but I need a contract to make sure you don't screw me...

 

Ideally speaking the "contract" would already be in place.
Part of thinking about community should be how to govern which would also include how each individual...including the individual (yes, legally speaking)of the community as well.
Most look to a N.P. (non-profit) legal status definition, but their are several corporate (move out of your preconceptions, please) and co-operative and even other alternatives which may better suite.
The hardest part is getting good legal counsel on this ...and all should be researched by those interested in moving into and toward community.

Blessings

Namaste

 

I'd say a formula based on time, labor, money. And maybe a life time commitment.

I personally could not in good faith ask for a contract because Im not bringing anything to the commune.

There are so many variables involved. I'd want my community to feel and be secure. A lot depends on the big picture and where the IC wants to go. No easy answers. lol

 

None.

As for the formula idea... wouldn't this mean that people joining in future years would automatically be basically indentured servants unless they were rich when they got there?

 

Yes, at least a basic constitution or direction explaining where the IC and the members stand and short term and long term expectations and goals.

I really like these ideas for an IC. Many benefits and legal protections with NP's and co-ops. Seems like all motives, intentions, and direction of the IC would be transparent and above board for all involved. So many benefits tax -wise, insurance, financial and protection from getting sued.

Absolutely! I would think the biggest challenge, because we're human, is not letting ego's and insecurities bring each other and the IC down. Good info oldwolf! Peace and blessings to you too!

 

I would say so. But what is the IC's goals as far as longevity? I'd presume part of the IC's purpose would be to offer the members and their progeny a lifetime home. Again the answer would lay with the individuals and IC's goals and purpose.
When we think in terms of community we have to get out of thinking of personal financial and material gain. We have to think in terms of communal gain. Western civiliation doesnt lend kindly to this type of thinking.

 

I find it amazing how those who have nothing to offer besides themselves, think they in some way should be entitled to an equal share of ownership as those who paid for everything to start with and are already there doing work.

An equal share of the food that is grown communally, yes... an equal use of projects that are built (or bought) by the community, of course... an equal chance to speak your piece during decisions, yes...

An equal share of ownership, guaranteed by contract? Not in any place I worked 15 years to get started without your help.

Getting away from babylon, is getting away from that very idea that you are entitled to something just by your very existence.

There is nothing you can do to ensure 'lifetime homes' for members and their progeny. Simple logic points out why.

The very idea of having a communal home with others is to share the work. THAT is what helps ensure the continued existence of the place and your place in it. If you stop doing your share of the work, you will not have a home. A contract, could help stop that, but who besides someone who wanted to be able to not work would feel the need for it?

Even if you work your whole life on the project, does this mean the next generation should support your children while they sit back and do nothing?
If not, then the idea of a lifetime home for the people and their progeny has just been shot down.

Decide what you want. Do you want the security of your name on a deed? Go get a job or otherwise get the money and buy something, perhaps with some friends....

If you want a place where you can build a small home (perhaps mobile if you aren't sure how long you will stay), a place to plant some food, maybe keep some animals without putting out 10s of thousands of dollars (or more) just to get the place to do that, then talk to someone like me, or the other homesteaders here (or elsewhere) who have offers open to anyone who will work with them to get shit done.

 

That is an awesome offer. I cant believe you dont have people beating down your door.
I think your offering some type of an IC but not a commune in the traditional sense. Your to invested.
After seeing oldwolfs post about different types of IC's I think the 'perfect' commune may not be a commune at all but would be a non-profit co-op type IC. Maybe the word 'commune' is outdated and not the model we should strive for today?

 

Personally, I dislike the word commune an immense amount. What it seems to have come to mean is not something that impresses me.

I always associated it with people coming together to share life with each other.

Unfortunately, that is not what 99% of the people who do contact me think it means. They have images of dozens and dozens of people sitting around buildings that are just magically 'there', eating food that just magically grows and live in peace and harmony with the world, because thats the way they want it....

So... whether it is because of the word itself, people's image of the word or people themselves, it doesn't convey what it should... at least to me.

As to why I am set up this way, it is because I have done this before, but as a group effort with people saying oh we want to do this, let's do this, when can we start... and after a property was found and the deal made, and the day came to show up and do the couple of hours of work that were necessary to cement the deal, nobody showed up... Everything that was put into it to start it up, was put up by me, for the group... I lost everything.

All these reasons that I toss out for why certain things won't work, no matter how much people wish for them, is because I spent many many many hours over years working towards this. Not just talking about it, or reading about it, although that was part of it, but actually doing the things that needed to be done to get set up again. I also spent that time with the same basic offer open to anyone who would work with me. I flipped real estate to get here (with no money and a shitty credit history) and always said the same thing... come work with me, and the results are ours, shared... Anyone who came then and worked with me, now owns an equal share here...

Nicole, my life partner, is the only one who owns an equal share.

Now, let's just ignore all that and get back to what you said... lol

"I'm too invested"

a) This is my home... how could I be less invested?

b) In considering a place to 'join', which is more 'secure' in terms of you being able to still be there in 10 years, the place where you have a person (or group of people) who really don't have anything invested... or a place where a person (or group) have invested everything?