Small Scale Utopia

[the last yatto]

speaking of which dok, you look at the spagbook lately?

[Kai]

Imagine living a community of 40-100 people, perhaps on a farm in Montana somewhere where land is really cheap. Would those wacky idealistic government options work?

Too many people.  Peoples' behaviors change in multiples of 8.  Below 8 people, with the right people, you can work as a team with nobody in charge.

At 8 people, everyone starts looking for an alpha.

At 16 people, the dynamic changes completely, and dominance politics becomes a fact of life.

At 32 people, you may as well have not bothered.  Factionalism becomes the order of the day.

Not sure WHY this is, but it's a fact of life that's taught in management training at many corporations, and seems to work. 

Less coordination between parts. It's like, when you take a set of points set equidistant apart in a circle around an object, and keep adding points (still equidistant apart), the diameter of the circle must get bigger. If the central point of the circle is a project, idea, corporation, etc, then not only are individuals less connected to each other but to the central mission of the group. Someone needs to lead or be a go-between to strengthen the connections.

Heh.  I figured it had more to do with monkey politics, but your solution sounds better.

I need to try to find the studies that the management gurus did on this.

If the management gurus differ in their explanation, my defense is of the "making the bullshit up on the spot" type.

[Doktor Howl]

Imagine living a community of 40-100 people, perhaps on a farm in Montana somewhere where land is really cheap. Would those wacky idealistic government options work?

Too many people.  Peoples' behaviors change in multiples of 8.  Below 8 people, with the right people, you can work as a team with nobody in charge.

At 8 people, everyone starts looking for an alpha.

At 16 people, the dynamic changes completely, and dominance politics becomes a fact of life.

At 32 people, you may as well have not bothered.  Factionalism becomes the order of the day.

Not sure WHY this is, but it's a fact of life that's taught in management training at many corporations, and seems to work. 

Less coordination between parts. It's like, when you take a set of points set equidistant apart in a circle around an object, and keep adding points (still equidistant apart), the diameter of the circle must get bigger. If the central point of the circle is a project, idea, corporation, etc, then not only are individuals less connected to each other but to the central mission of the group. Someone needs to lead or be a go-between to strengthen the connections.

Heh.  I figured it had more to do with monkey politics, but your solution sounds better.

I need to try to find the studies that the management gurus did on this.

If the management gurus differ in their explanation, my defense is of the "making the bullshit up on the spot" type.

You want a job? 

Dok,
Does that all the time.

[LMNO]

Mathematically, I think that follows the "factorial" rule, in that the number of possible arrangements of people increase dramatically with every new person involved.

With 4 people, there are 24 possible combinations.  With 8 people, there are 40,320.

16 people?  over TWO MILLION.


And so on.

[Cramulus]

so then if you want to avoid human drama, avoid living with humans.




the question in the OP was - yes, we agree that large scale anarchy is kind of dumb. But does it work on a small scale? And I think everybody's been agreeing so far - the smaller number of people, the more likely it is to work. and the other question is - does it work better if your anarchy is an island floating within democratic capitalism?

Babylon Horuv gave us some great anecdotes about what its' like to grow up in an anarchist/communal lifestyle. He said the police only showed up once, and it turns out they weren't really needed. I like that they were available in case some biker gang came in to start fucking shit up, but were willing to basically leave the farm alone and let it do its own thing.

[Doktor Howl]

so then if you want to avoid human drama, avoid living with humans.




the question in the OP was - yes, we agree that large scale anarchy is kind of dumb. But does it work on a small scale? And I think everybody's been agreeing so far - the smaller number of people, the more likely it is to work. and the other question is - does it work better if your anarchy is an island floating within democratic capitalism?

Babylon Horuv gave us some great anecdotes about what its' like to grow up in an anarchist/communal lifestyle. He said the police only showed up once, and it turns out they weren't really needed. I like that they were available in case some biker gang came in to start fucking shit up, but were willing to basically leave the farm alone and let it do its own thing.

Okay, so we've established that a small group of people can live in a communal arrangement, provided they aren't in a societal vacuum.

I don't see what's different between that and a half a dozen people renting a place together.

[Cramulus]

people renting a house together is a bit smaller scale than forming an intentional community. In an intentional community you get to be a self-sustaining unit relatively separate from the rest of the country. If everybody rents a place together, they still have to get jobs in the outside world.

[Doktor Howl]

people renting a house together is a bit smaller scale than forming an intentional community. In an intentional community you get to be a self-sustaining unit relatively separate from the rest of the country. If everybody rents a place together, they still have to get jobs in the outside world.

Still going to have to pay taxes to the outside world, if you want those police you were mentioning (in fact, you're going to have to pay them anyway).  That means you need outside world currency.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

There are options in the US. For example, there are people living entirely off grid and still maintain all the modern comforts.  

Look at 'earthships' for example:

The earthship design is made of dirt and recycled materials. You can buy everything you need for the basics from junkyards/recycle plants on the cheap.  The design maximizes natural heating/cooling so depending on where you live you may not have a heating or cooling bill at all. Solar panels are more than adequate to charge batteries for most home needs, wind power could be used as well. Water can be managed either via well or cistern. Grey water can be reused for gardens. Toilets can empty into solar ovens where they are transformed into usable soil. ALL of that technology is available now and in use! Add to that a wireless plan from a provider in the area and you have phone and Internet as well.

At max, your monthly bills become paying for telecommunications and water if you have to have it hauled in for the cistern... and of course paying for the land if you got it on a mortgage.

A lot of people are building these kid of homes in areas that aren't feasible for normal houses (couple big pushes in the 'Spanish Land Grant' area in southern Colorado). The area is in the mountains, bad for building foundations of traditional homes, no grid services and thus, property taxes and land costs are much lower than you'd normally expect to see. When I was looking at the option five years ago, land was going for about $1000 an acre. To build a three bedroom earthship on 10 acres of land would have been (in total) under $90,000 that's far less expensive than any urban/suburban options.

A lot of people have made some really crazy solutions for off grid living... one family has an indoor swimming pool which is heated via solar windows. The pool water is also pumped through pipes in the floor heating the whole house with no actual utility cost.

-----------

As for 'co-op's' and communes... I was surprised to learn that the US was chock full of communes from the 1700's through 1900. Many of them were religious (Shakers, Quakers, Mormons, Amish, Mennonites) but some were based on community rather than specific religious requirements. Most of these fell apart because the generation of kids circa 1900 tended to move out into the wider world and the communes died of old age. So the basic system of government here in the US CAN work with communes (and these communes often had a population that was the size of a small town). A lot of the small towns during the settlement of the US also operated as a mostly self sustaining group, a combination of capitalism, barter systems and cooperation.

Of course, today, going off grid and joining a group of people will likely get you tagged as someone to keep an eye on.

EDIT: Of course, the Internet access possibility open up a lot of ways to make money for taxes, necessities etc without being part of the traditional employer/employee relationship. This concept shows up in a lot of William Gibson's books... One of the best sources for 'decks' come from a commune that builds tech within their commune. There's a commune currently that does web design in order to make money (can't find the link to their site currently).

[Cramulus]

people renting a house together is a bit smaller scale than forming an intentional community. In an intentional community you get to be a self-sustaining unit relatively separate from the rest of the country. If everybody rents a place together, they still have to get jobs in the outside world.

Still going to have to pay taxes to the outside world, if you want those police you were mentioning (in fact, you're going to have to pay them anyway).  That means you need outside world currency.

yeah, that's part of the plan

like in Babylon Horuv's anecdote, they did sell some crops to the outside world to cover taxes and other necessities

[Doktor Howl]

Well, have fun. I kind of like the grid.  I like having power when I want it, and I like free time, which you're not going to have when you have to replicate all of society's benefits on your own (maintenance, I can assure you, is a bitch, and nobody that doesn't do it for a living really grasps how much time and resources it takes to keep even simple things running).

In a word, Rat, I have no doubt that it can be done (it's all very basic technology), I just wonder why?

[Doktor Howl]

people renting a house together is a bit smaller scale than forming an intentional community. In an intentional community you get to be a self-sustaining unit relatively separate from the rest of the country. If everybody rents a place together, they still have to get jobs in the outside world.

Still going to have to pay taxes to the outside world, if you want those police you were mentioning (in fact, you're going to have to pay them anyway).  That means you need outside world currency.

yeah, that's part of the plan

like in Babylon Horuv's anecdote, they did sell some crops to the outside world to cover taxes and other necessities

Well, sure.  Just be aware how much effort it takes to grow your own food, let alone enough to have a large enough salable surplus to get you by.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, have fun. I kind of like the grid.  I like having power when I want it, and I like free time, which you're not going to have when you have to replicate all of society's benefits on your own (maintenance, I can assure you, is a bitch, and nobody that doesn't do it for a living really grasps how much time and resources it takes to keep even simple things running).

In a word, Rat, I have no doubt that it can be done (it's all very basic technology), I just wonder why?

Well, from the people I've talked to that live off grid it's generally a choice predicated on what they consider important. One couple wanted to be completely organic and sustainable because they felt that was very important. Their earthship implementation minimized waste and their impact on their environment. Even the house itself was designed to have a minimum impact on the environment around it. Other people seemed to prefer the much lower cost of living and as far as I could tell from talking to them, didn't seem to have problems with power loss, or maintenance... they figured it into their regular costs. In fact, the family that I talked to most basically pointed out that they spend about 10 hours a week doing maintenance but felt that it was far better than 40 hours a week (plus drive time) at a job away from home. For them 'maintenance'   was a family chore. Personally, I dunno if I'd want to raise my kids like that with home school etc... but I can see why some people might choose to.

At this point, based on my conversations and research, living off grid doesn't appear to require the caveman lifestyle that we once assumed.

[Doktor Howl]

All I know is that I spent a long time around fairly self-sufficient farms in Ontario.

The work was NEVER done.

[Faust]

All I know is that I spent a long time around fairly self-sufficient farms in Ontario.

The work was NEVER done.

A farmers life makes you a slave to the land. My housemate went to college to be an engineer solely so he could escape that lifestyle. Its hard, all consuming work.
I cant imagine the benefits of partial independance outweighing the self imposed servitude that comes with it.