Perfect Commune

i agree perfect was the wrong term tu use, but i am just seeing what others think. If i had the money to start a commune i dont think i would. too many problems can arrise in a commune. That is my nature though for i am an aquairous and the perfect definition of the lone wolf. The internet is my outreach to society because i wan always turn the computer off.

 

we think that perfection includes the potential for change.

 

No drugs.
Alright, relax - I'm not saying DRUGS R BAD and I'm not suggesting we're all better off as straightedgers.

But I've been looking for a commune for a long time. A traveling one, a stationary one, you name it. I've tried to find one somewhat local but quickly expanded it to pretty much anywhere on the planet. I've talked to hundreds of people who've lived in and/or started a commune; and the vast, vast, vast majority of stories I heard about trainwrecks and things falling apart and all the other horrors came from someone fucking everything up for everyone because of a bad trip; or cops raiding the place and finding an acre or so of pot, or everyone getting so perpetually fucked up that nothing ever got done and it disintegrated.

Just a thought.

 

Grim, drugs have nothing to do with the horror stories you have heard. You could have taken the same people without the drugs, and things would have still fucked up, they would have just found something else to blame the failure on.

Every single incident I have heard about regarding communes (or the like) starting up and failing have all been for the exact same reason. An imbalance of energy. No, that is not a spiritual type comment, that is a reality comment...

A home (no matter what you want to call it, house, commune, gathering, party or whatever), needs the people involved to put as much or more then they take out of it in terms of work. In otherwords, you can't eat a tomato without growing it, or doing something else (expending energy) to earn the money to buy it or barter for it with something of equal value.

The lack of this balance is what causes them to fail.

You can have a dozen people all working together, add in one leech and the whole thing will fall apart.

Drugs, booze, even spiritual beliefs are just the excuses people put on those leeches rather then taking the time to recognize that no matter what was influencing them, the leeches sucked the life out of the plan.

I can say this with no doubt for the simple reason I know many people who are stoners, drunks or sometimes both, who have still accomplished more then the average person has. I can show you one that lives close to me who has been living his life for decades stoned and/or drunk most of the time, and has managed to build up a place with literally hundred of hundreds of acres, raised animals, grow gardens all off grid.

I can point to another total stoner (been stoned for almost his whole life) who in spite of having nothing to start with, found a path that let him remain who he was ( a stoner) and still led him to the country. That is in SPITE of the leeches who caused him to be set back numerous times.

In short, don't blame drugs for people's choices.

I was going to end it there but realized I should point something out... stupidity in general has also caused some to fail. Sometimes in relation to drugs, but still not the 'drugs' fault. As in those places that openly advertise heavy drug use or in other manners try to slap the LEO's across the face with their lifestyle. If you challenge them, they WILL come.

But still, not the fault of drugs...

 

You're right, the guy who whigged out on an unexpectedly hard acid trip would have thought that hiker was a monster anyway; and would have still reasoned he had to protect himself by stabbing him.

I know everyone hates to see somebody even broach the subject of any drug anywhere being a negative influence; but it's just the way it is. They're a tool like anything else; but they're a tool that can completely and sometimes permanently alter you - and as such, aren't the sort of tool you just pick up and put down easily and quickly. They do change people, and they do cause people who can't handle them to sometimes do nothing and waste away, or sometimes do rather terrible things. That level of instability is something I wouldn't want present among all the other instabilities and surprises one would have to deal with in communal life.

Anyway, I understand your philosophy - and you're right that in the end, it comes down to being the fault of whatever moron screwed up.

 

off the grid location, self-sustainability, and trusted people that'll enjoy both work and play.

 

I don't know if you missed this or disagreed with it, but you didn't actually talk about what my point was...

It isn't just that it is the fault of the person who screwed up, but more of, if they screwed up after doing drugs, they would have screwed up in some other way if that drug didn't exist... If not drugs, then booze or perhaps even just pure stupidity.

Yes, people do stupid things on drugs... but they also do them while not on drugs...

Where you said that drugs are a tool, I 100% agree, and you don't blame the tool for a shitty job.

 

I don't know, I've had experience with people who were pretty on the level and just a little curious; tried something just once and ended up doing some shitty things as a result that they never would have done otherwise.

Odds are the really scummy people out there will find a way to suck nomatter what they have or don't have; but let's not pretend drugs are a blameless and magical thing that have never been the root of a bad event or two.

 

Drugs are always blameless Grim... Unless you know of drugs that crawl up people noses or throw needles into their arms without co-operation from the user.

Yes, drugs can have negative effects on people, just like guns, cars and science itself can.

The 'blame' always lays solely on the shoulders of the PERSON who made the choice that ended badly.

 

Maybe, maybe not - the point wasn't the core blame for any given issue, but what steps would help make something like a commune as good/long-lasting as possible. With the odds already against such a thing and it being a relatively unstable situation when getting started anyway; I think removing drugs from the equation can't do anything but benefit matters. At worst, people have to do without their unnecessary chemical of choice - at best, it prevents someone from having the option of making the one bad choice in their life that would have brought it all down.

 

I understand what you mean in theory, but have you really thought this through?

You are saying you think a commune where people's personal choices (that under normal circumstances, are not harmful to others) should be controlled by the 'commune'.

To be clear the reason I said 'by the commune' is because whether it is by the word of a 'leader', a vote or some other means doesn't matter in the point of limiting a persons personal choices.

Where do you stop making rules for others then?

Having rules to ensure the safety of each other from each other is a necessary part of the social makeup of any type of group. However, as soon as you cross the line into making rules to defend people from themselves, you might as well stay in babylon.

You can either have a group of Individuals who choose to work and live together for mutual benefit, or you can have leaders and followers. There are no other options.

Babylon has all the leaders and followers the world needs... It always seemed silly to me to try to escape it only to rebuild it on a smaller scale.

 

In what facet of life do we really ever have complete and utter 'freedom'?
I don't like my obnoxious downstairs neighbors; but I can't drill a hole in the floor and pee on them in their sleep because I'll go to jail. I mean I COULD do it, but I have to deal with what would happen.

A commune with a 'no drugs' rule isn't making people change their lives, it's saying "Hey, if you want to stay here, this is the deal".

In a utopian situation with all wonderful people, sure you could just say "Hey we have land, let's work together and stuff" and it will be groovy. But given the reality of the world and the reality of the sorts of folks communes tend to draw in; there are going to be some rules nomatter what - and this thread was the hypothetical list of what the best combination of those rules would be.

 

I didn't say anything about having complete and utter freedom. I was actually quite careful to be specific and not do such a thing. Because you are right in that such a thing does not and cannot exist.

That was why I said that the line (for me) is between protecting people from others, and protecting people from themselves.

What happens when the group, or the leader decides that drinking coffee is bad? How about listening to rock and roll? Maybe wearing red clothes? Perhaps women should cover their faces?

The line becomes awfully faded and weak once you cross into that area.

 

It goes the other way, too. Where does the group leader get off saying you have to contribute to the group? Why does the group leader get to decide if person A or person B is allowed into the group? Does the group leader have the right to say I can't have a meth lab and sell it on the group's property? Why can't I have an armory worth of guns?

Any rules at all fall into that slippery slope; so it's going to be an issue regardless of which rules you set. No drugs decreases risks, eliminates at least one reason for local law enforcement to give you a hard time, and isn't putting any undue strain on anyone.

 

I'll go along with the point that choosing a rule such as no drugs, is no different then making a rule such as no guns or meth labs.

In terms of choosing who can come or not, that all depends on who owns the property. If it is bought as a group, then the group makes those decisions. If one person owns it, then that person makes them. Simple fact is that anything that happens on that property falls back to the people who are listed on the deed.

The contribution part is the basis of anything that is going to be called a group effort, the fact that it is almost universally mentioned when people talk about such places is that there is a surprisingly huge number of people who claim to want to come until they find out they actually have to DO something.

This part I don't agree with though. I see a huge difference in someone saying "physically attacking someone isn't allowed", and "you must be a vegetarian"...

One is a rule to protect everyone from being attacked, the other is to control them.

 

drugs are fine if regulated, but not suggested to take acid in a moving vehicle in general tho...

 

If you want to have a good example of social structure in a commune, look no further than an old Folk's home. There are mild rules for obvious reasons, but the seniors has complete free will. I know I haven't taken into account whose doing the work and what not, but it is possible to have a very peaceful and functional commune. I will let you all figure out how to implement the work structure in a peaceful way.

 

a place that is completely self sufficient from the outside world.
And yes, any drugs it consumes, it makes. None from outside.

 

I'd like to find a Steam Punk themed commune, where all the compost is first processed to extract the methane before being tilled back into the garden area, which may or may not be an abandoned warehouse building using solar powered LED grow lights or using Stirling engines driven by the heat of the composting humanure and or the burning of wood for heating / cooking. Oh, and prior to vegetable wastes being processed for methane, their essential oils would be extracted for bio diesel which could further fuel the generators for the grow lights or any foundry or glassblowing anyone wanted to do or perhaps run a vehicle or two off them..

I basically want Barter Town without Tina Turner.

 

biodiesel is a seems like a beautiful thing, which i would love to learn more about it myself. Would diesel fired generators be able to create the same output as a traditional oil or gas fired one?