Alright, I get it
Anarchy isn't going to work. Which is a shame because I really really
like the idea of not ever having a boss, and my labor supporting my local community rather than wall street's drug habit.
And socialism is iffy. I don't even trust the government to deliver the mail, let alone provide actual needs. But its heart is in the right place.
But I have this idea about governance in general - which is that the larger the group of people, the less adequately the government addresses their needs. I think a good government should be able to adapt and respond to issues without getting gridlocked in partisan politics or compromised by financial incentives. The smaller government we're talking about, the better chance it has to do this. As globalism is on the rise, we're all becoming world citizens, and I want an alternative.
Our pal Ed Wilson (co author of Art of Memeics) has a new blog, and this entry (http://nietzschecoyote.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/analog-system-hacking-101-alternate-visions-built-in-the-gaps/) seems to be pointing in the right direction. Ed asks -
QuoteWith our alternate visions we can begin building alternate structures in the gaps of the current system. We can take the innovations and legal structures that already exist and adapt them to our purposes. Corporations, Churches, Non-profits, Co-Ops… these are things that already exist. How can we use them differently?
so consider this
would anarchy or socialism work on a really small scale, suspended within the aether of democratic capitalism?
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?
We'd still have the protections of democracy - like there being a police force to stop roving bikers from taking our drugs and women. But within the community, we wouldn't have to worry about landlordism, taxes, etc.
Perhaps the backdrop is that we would all be employees of some company. Obviously somebody in the community would have to interface with the outside world and sell them things we make. Somebody would be in charge of paying rent and taxes and getting us all insurance.
I'm reminded of the "republican reservations" in Transmetropolitan. Its an area which is walled off to the outside world so the people inside can pretend they're republicans in the 1980s. They created this little bubble within society where they could build their own form of utopia.
Do you think it could work?
5 people sharing a house is hell.
I cant imagine all the complications of just doubling that.
And im not sure what benefits moving to the middle of nowhere would give, other than having constant interaction with whom you like.
Of course. Seems like a no brainer to me. It seems that all the forms of governance are workable on a small scale in the way their proponents envisioned, and it is upon scaling up that they don't work.
This is why I support being power being as distributed as possible. Why allocate to the county what the municipality can handle? To the state what the county can handle? To the federal govt. what the state can handle? All it does is limit choice, and adaptability. Oh... and increase the personal power and wealth of those at the higher levels.... Hmmm...
I'm of the opinion that we will be seeing large scale changes in our lifetimes that will "allow" us to explore more local options.
If I had to guess, I'd put decent money on the idea that there are already many 'Galts Gulches' out there operating without any of us knowing it...
Isn't this just another way of proposing counter-economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics) and economic secession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_secession)? Lots of people talk the talk on the issue, even the Centre for A Stateless Society has had some pieces up on it recently (here (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/c4ss/~3/U7E0Rr_IuvE/1492) and here (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/c4ss/~3/SFtRfbZhWgM/1503) and here (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/c4ss/~3/blXgkCLSQgw/1520)) but few are walking the walk.
Which makes me wonder if
a) ignoring the state isn't as easy as it sounds, because the state has an active interest in expanding its power to every facet of social life, including your commune or whatever where you are trying to escape from, or
b) most libertarians and anarchists are dicks who are incapable of getting along with other people, or
c) something else is going on
Quote from: JohNyx on January 05, 2010, 03:11:23 PM
5 people sharing a house is hell.
I cant imagine all the complications of just doubling that.
And im not sure what benefits moving to the middle of nowhere would give, other than having constant interaction with whom you like.
humans lived in tribal units for literally millions of years before we caught the city virus.
The advantage to moving to the middle of nowhere? That you can start your own little country.
without getting into a big diatribe about what I dislike about Shit These Days....
From where I'm sitting, I'm extremely frustrated with how I live, and it's not something I'm doing wrong, it's just a growing disenchantment regarding large scale capitalist democracy. I gotta get a job to earn money to pay rent and taxes, even if I build my own house and shoot my own food. To me, that is not freedom.
Also, I'm sick of how the capitalist aether commodifies everything. You have to put a dollar value on everything - how much money is it worth for you to ditch your friends and family and move into a city you hate? Financial transactions are the real mode of expressions for love, hate, sympathy, and desire. Sometimes it feels like money is the only thing happening in America, and we're just the interchangable red blood cells which carry it.
but anyway, I want to get away from all that, and my only choices are living in a kind of dangerous country.
so can we just build our own world inside the cracks of this one?
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 03:17:33 PM
If I had to guess, I’d put decent money on the idea that there are already many ‘Galts Gulches’ out there operating without any of us knowing it…
see yeah, that's pointing in the right direction. I've never read Atlas Shrugged, is this Galt's Gulch thing basically what I'm describing?
Cain,
yes the local thing gets shut down by the state.
Check out the success and subsequent banning of Wara scrip in depression era Germany.
Check out the success of Unemployed Exchange Association and their issues with Roosevelt, WPA and FedGov in depression era US.
Cram,
Yeah, sorta. I never finished the book. to slow for me, but that's kinda the idea. the 'captains of industry' that were fettered by the state run by leeches shrugged off the burden by going to a place called Galts Gulch where I presume everything because awesome... that's the gist of it as I understand it.
Perhaps somebody will make a comic book form of it someday so I can get through it with the aid of extra Biff, Pow! Flash!
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2010, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 05, 2010, 03:11:23 PM
5 people sharing a house is hell.
I cant imagine all the complications of just doubling that.
And im not sure what benefits moving to the middle of nowhere would give, other than having constant interaction with whom you like.
humans lived in tribal units for literally millions of years before we caught the city virus.
The advantage to moving to the middle of nowhere? That you can start your own little country.
without getting into a big diatribe about what I dislike about Shit These Days....
From where I'm sitting, I'm extremely frustrated with how I live, and it's not something I'm doing wrong, it's just a growing disenchantment regarding large scale capitalist democracy. I gotta get a job to earn money to pay rent and taxes, even if I build my own house and shoot my own food. To me, that is not freedom.
Also, I'm sick of how the capitalist aether commodifies everything. You have to put a dollar value on everything - how much money is it worth for you to ditch your friends and family and move into a city you hate? Financial transactions are the real mode of expressions for love, hate, sympathy, and desire. Sometimes it feels like money is the only thing happening in America, and we're just the interchangable red blood cells which carry it.
but anyway, I want to get away from all that, and my only choices are living in a kind of dangerous country.
so can we just build our own world inside the cracks of this one?
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 03:17:33 PM
If I had to guess, I'd put decent money on the idea that there are already many 'Galts Gulches' out there operating without any of us knowing it...
see yeah, that's pointing in the right direction. I've never read Atlas Shrugged, is this Galt's Gulch thing basically what I'm describing?
If it ever is possible, id be glad to join in.
I just think you cannot escape the system.
Just to point out, it seems like much of what you are desiring can be found in any small rural town in the US.
There are many that are not backwoods hick places, but are quaint and some that are artistically oriented that you may fit into....
have you simply considered moving to a small town?
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 03:17:33 PM
This is why I support being power being as distributed as possible. Why allocate to the county what the municipality can handle? To the state what the county can handle? To the federal govt. what the state can handle? All it does is limit choice, and adaptability. Oh... and increase the personal power and wealth of those at the higher levels.... Hmmm...
I'm of the opinion that we will be seeing large scale changes in our lifetimes that will "allow" us to explore more local options.
I'd substitute "enable" in place of "allow". Once the technology to do this is viable, those advocating that their vote should be worth more than that of the people they represent, will have a hard sell to hold onto the power they've been granted in the past.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 04:10:21 PM
Just to point out, it seems like much of what you are desiring can be found in any small rural town in the US.
There are many that are not backwoods hick places, but are quaint and some that are artistically oriented that you may fit into....
have you simply considered moving to a small town?
nah it's close but it's really not the same thing
I don't want to work for someone who will threaten my biosurvival by taking away those green tickets if I don't french kiss his ass
I don't want my lifestyle be determined by the lords who own the land I'm living on
I barely want to participate in the greater american theater.
And while the reality of it may turn out to be kind of harsh, I think the idea of living off-grid is really romantic
Cram,
Off grid is fine, but it seems that you want to get away from the rat race, but you are still very much a people person rather than a hermit. therefore, small town. That's all i was saying. Small town people have more of a self sufficient mindset, and even if you have a boss, he's going to be more in line with that thinking than in The City.
there are small town art communities that are pretty sweet that i've seen...
Self sufficiency is a noble goal in my opinion, and i am working on improving it as much as possible. i furthermore would suggest that everyone do the same as quickly as possible because the structures that currently support us are crumbling.
sorry for going kind of off topic.
exactly what type of people would you be looking for?
I'm not really interested in the merits of small town live vs big city life
I'm interested in whether it'd be possible to start an entirely new society WITHIN our society
is that possible? or would it collapse due to external pressure?
anarchy or socialism don't seem to work on large scales, but will they work on small scales like this?
The Amish get away with it.
I've been thinking a lot about these lately, and it seems a good way to leverage mokeyspheres instead of having them used against you. It isn't even necessarily a matter of economic secession, there are a *lot* of advantages you can get just from banding together, things are cheaper when you have enough people to buy them in bulk, you can use nepotism in your favor, either by having the commune start its own business or by getting some people within the group into position to get others good jobs.
Of course, my vision of setting up these things is a bit different than others' (the Galt thing for example, has absolutely nothing to with how I'd set one up, even in the slightest), and thats possibly the biggest problem, you really need to have enough people who share a vision of how it should work
Gotcha.
I would say the answer is yes. You have ethnic enclaves that pretty well separate themselves... (in both rural and urban environments)
Small scale socialism seems to work pretty well for the Mennonites, no?
I'm still fuzzy on what kind of 'society' you would be seeking?
Requia,
are you thinking about it in the way that John Robbs is with his advocating us to 'Tribe Up'?
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2010, 04:33:04 PM
I barely want to participate in the greater american theater.
And while the reality of it may turn out to be kind of harsh, I think the idea of living off-grid is really romantic
I'm not trying to take the piss, but looking at the last few years of car/suv adverts as part of a bigger trend, it makes me wonder if implanting the impotent desire to get away and live off-grid is not part of the greater american theater? Script: "You may be shackled to your debts and family, but at least you can own (with monthly payments, natch) a vehicle
which could potentially when you are able to start the process of eventually beginning to find the time to take you somewhere off-grid. Then you can take pictures/proof of your exploits with your new digital SLR and foist them upon your office colleagues come Monday morning."
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2010, 05:05:22 PM
I'm not really interested in the merits of small town live vs big city life
I'm interested in whether it'd be possible to start an entirely new society WITHIN our society
I think the seeds of it are there - niche communities which support the livelihood of members who make a living creating specific costumes or sci-fi models and props or getting your character up a few levels in WoW. You know, stuff which would have seemed pretty far out ~ten years ago.
I guess looking at the religious compounds in the US, if there's a revenue stream, then you can do pretty much anything. Trolls for Hire?
I'll have to look him up, but 'Tribe up' certainly sounds like what I have in mind.
FP,
It's not being imprinted by the adverts as much as it is a deeply rooted thread in the American psyche that the ads are exploiting.
damn near everybody has their story of their great grand parents roughing it out on the great plains or whatnot overcoming great hardship and beating nature into submission in exchange for eventual prosperity and freedom. (relatively)
now we sit on our ass in cubicles and think, "i want to journey into the fronteir"
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 05:15:04 PM
Requia,
are you thinking about it in the way that John Robbs is with his advocating us to 'Tribe Up'?
Do you mean John Robb of the global guerillas blog? I haven't been able to access it for a couple weeks now. Hard to check.
As much as I want to say, "damn the Man", I really like indoor plumbing and electricity.
Yeah. that's the one. (thanks Cain!)
I've read several thing by him talking about the advantages of forming "tribes" for the sake of resilience, and the structures and commonalities of such
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2010, 05:48:07 PM
As much as I want to say, "damn the Man", I really like indoor plumbing and electricity.
"the Man" isn't necessary for indoor plumbing or electricity...
especially in these days of miracles and magic.
I CAN HAZ QUANTUM PLUMBING?
Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2010, 05:48:07 PM
As much as I want to say, "damn the Man", I really like indoor plumbing and electricity.
I don't think that living in a relatively self-contained community means forsaking these luxuries of modern living
some luxuries would have to go, like you probably wouldn't own a car so much as you'd share one, but I don't see why we couldn't still have communal phones and wireless internet or whatever.
that's the reason to start a society
within this society, rather than go rough it in somolia
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2010, 05:48:07 PM
As much as I want to say, "damn the Man", I really like indoor plumbing and electricity.
There's a reason I never liked the farm version of starting your own community, and want to know how to do it within the city.
It sounds like what you're proposing is usually called, "living in a co-op."
co-ops are good.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 05, 2010, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 05:15:04 PM
Requia,
are you thinking about it in the way that John Robbs is with his advocating us to 'Tribe Up'?
Do you mean John Robb of the global guerillas blog? I haven't been able to access it for a couple weeks now. Hard to check.
QuoteHow do you manufacture a strong community that protects, defends and advances the interests of its members? You build a tribe. Tribal organization is the most survivable of all organizational types and it was the dominant form for 99.99% of human history. The most important aspect of tribal organization is that it is the organizational cockroach of human history. It has proven it can withstand the onslaught of the harshest of environments. Global depression? No problem.
If you are like most people in the 'developed world,' you don't have any experience in a true tribal organization. Tribal organizations were crushed in the last couple of Centuries due to pressures from the nation-state that saw them as competitors and the marketplace that saw them as impediments. All we have now it is a moderately strong nuclear family (weakened via modern economics that forces familial diasporas), a weak extended family, a loose collection of friends (a social circle), a tenuous corporate affiliation, and a tangential relationship with a remote nation-state. That, for many of us, is proving to be insufficient as a means of withstanding the pressures of the chaotic and harsh modern environment (D2 in particular).
The solution to this problem is to build a tribe. A group of people that you are loyal to you and you are loyal in return. In short, the need for a primary loyalty to a group that really cares about your survival and future success.
So how do you build a tribe? A strong tribe, in this post-industrial environment*, isn't built from the top down. Instead it is built organically from the bottom up. A simple tribe starts with cementing ties to your extended family, a connection of blood. The second step is to extend that network to include other families and worthy individuals. A key part of that is to build fictive kinship, a sense of connectedness that leads to the creation of loyalty to the group. That kinship is built through (see Ronfeldt's paper for some background on this):
* Story telling. Shared histories and historical narratives.
* Rites of passage. Rituals of membership. Membership is earned not given due to the geographic location of birth or residence.
* Obligations. Rules of conduct and honor. The ultimate penalty being expulsion.
* Egalitarian and often leaderless organization. Sharing is prized.
* Multi-skilled. Segmental organization (lots of redundancy among parts).
* Two-way loyalty. The tribe protects the members and the members protect the tribe. If this isn't implemented, you don't have a tribe, you have a Kiwanis club.
The development of fictive kinship will likely be key to the development of resilient communities (as it is already for global guerrillas). We can already see this process at work in the UK's Transition Towns movement with their story telling, honoring elders, re-skilling, and leaderless approach (see the 12 steps).
*Nationalism is a form of fictive kinship manufactured/bent to serve the needs of the state during our industrial phase of economic organization.
Not exactly what I'm thinking of, but it fits well the goal I'm after (the commune or co-op or whatever is a means).
Okay, first off, I REALLY like this idea. I've thought of it often over the past few years at least. I think it can be done, but there are always limitations.
If you haven't read Aldous Huxley's Island, I recommend doing so. The story involves a small society of people living on an island for very similar reasons as yours, with very similar goals. Don't finish this paragraph if you don't like spoilers, but if I understood what I read right, I think the way Island ends sort of shows that Huxley felt these kinds of small utopias only last so long, before the outside world starts to figure out what you're getting away with, and comes in and annihilates everything you've achieved. Well, almost everything. Depending on how long you can pull it off, much of what you've gained may be salvageable in some way or another for future endeavors. The reason things fall apart in Island, iirc, is that the Islanders are sort of betrayed by one of their own, which falls in line I think with RAWs observations about organizational structures.
I watched a documentary, and have read quite a bit on the web about small urban communes, some which have failed miserably, and some which have been able to create, for a time, semi-self-sustaining communities. If you've never heard of Orange Twin, I'd also recommend perusing their website http://www.orangetwin.com/village/index.html (http://www.orangetwin.com/village/index.html) and reading about their successes thus far. I haven't checked on them lately, but I know they have been planning, organizing, and raising funds and resources from members and outside supporters for years for a type of community they call a "Pedestrian Village". They have had some measure of success establishing a land area with modern housing, generated electricity and solar power, propane tanks, self-sustained water supplies, and income generated by selling art, music, productions and performances made by members of the community. As far as I know, they have all the modern conveniences that most Americans do, with many advantages that most Americans do not. Part of their mission statement states:
"We want to create an integrated community in which the residents can live, work and pursue their interests. We hope our community can serve as a model of sustainable living, using viable solutions that do not further harm, but rather help to heal the earth."
I think if you're really serious about doing this, it can be done, but will require an immense amount of planning, organizing, resource pooling, possibly fund-raising, and serious dedication.
interesting link, VV
i'll have to check out the Huxley book (so that i can finish your paragraph)
This also reflects the life cycle of artist communities.
1) rents are cheap in a shitty part of town, usually ex-industrial.
2) starving artists rent the lofts, and violate building codes by living in them. No one cares, because it's a shitty part of the city.
3) the artists start helping each other out with food, repairs, safety, and ultimately artistic collaboration.
4) their block of the neighborhood becomes identified with "cutting edge art." Newspapers begin reporting the innovations coming out of the "downtown _____ scene."
5) middle-class pricks who want to seem cool buy up property in the area.
6) rent escalates, forcing the artists out and destroying the scene.
7) rinse and repeat.
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2010, 06:39:14 PM
This also reflects the life cycle of artist communities.
1) rents are cheap in a shitty part of town, usually ex-industrial.
2) starving artists rent the lofts, and violate building codes by living in them. No one cares, because it's a shitty part of the city.
3) the artists start helping each other out with food, repairs, safety, and ultimately artistic collaboration.
4) their block of the neighborhood becomes identified with "cutting edge art." Newspapers begin reporting the innovations coming out of the "downtown _____ scene."
5) middle-class pricks who want to seem cool buy up property in the area.
6) rent escalates, forcing the artists out and destroying the scene.
7) rinse and repeat.
Sedona and Jerome, AZ, are ironclad proofs of your hypothesis.
Quote from: Cain on January 05, 2010, 06:02:02 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 05, 2010, 05:44:42 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 05:15:04 PM
Requia,
are you thinking about it in the way that John Robbs is with his advocating us to 'Tribe Up'?
Do you mean John Robb of the global guerillas blog? I haven't been able to access it for a couple weeks now. Hard to check.
QuoteHow do you manufacture a strong community that protects, defends and advances the interests of its members? You build a tribe. Tribal organization is the most survivable of all organizational types and it was the dominant form for 99.99% of human history. The most important aspect of tribal organization is that it is the organizational cockroach of human history. It has proven it can withstand the onslaught of the harshest of environments. Global depression? No problem.
If you are like most people in the 'developed world,' you don't have any experience in a true tribal organization. Tribal organizations were crushed in the last couple of Centuries due to pressures from the nation-state that saw them as competitors and the marketplace that saw them as impediments. All we have now it is a moderately strong nuclear family (weakened via modern economics that forces familial diasporas), a weak extended family, a loose collection of friends (a social circle), a tenuous corporate affiliation, and a tangential relationship with a remote nation-state. That, for many of us, is proving to be insufficient as a means of withstanding the pressures of the chaotic and harsh modern environment (D2 in particular).
The solution to this problem is to build a tribe. A group of people that you are loyal to you and you are loyal in return. In short, the need for a primary loyalty to a group that really cares about your survival and future success.
So how do you build a tribe? A strong tribe, in this post-industrial environment*, isn't built from the top down. Instead it is built organically from the bottom up. A simple tribe starts with cementing ties to your extended family, a connection of blood. The second step is to extend that network to include other families and worthy individuals. A key part of that is to build fictive kinship, a sense of connectedness that leads to the creation of loyalty to the group. That kinship is built through (see Ronfeldt's paper for some background on this):
* Story telling. Shared histories and historical narratives.
* Rites of passage. Rituals of membership. Membership is earned not given due to the geographic location of birth or residence.
* Obligations. Rules of conduct and honor. The ultimate penalty being expulsion.
* Egalitarian and often leaderless organization. Sharing is prized.
* Multi-skilled. Segmental organization (lots of redundancy among parts).
* Two-way loyalty. The tribe protects the members and the members protect the tribe. If this isn't implemented, you don't have a tribe, you have a Kiwanis club.
The development of fictive kinship will likely be key to the development of resilient communities (as it is already for global guerrillas). We can already see this process at work in the UK's Transition Towns movement with their story telling, honoring elders, re-skilling, and leaderless approach (see the 12 steps).
*Nationalism is a form of fictive kinship manufactured/bent to serve the needs of the state during our industrial phase of economic organization.
sounds like peedee
Quote from: Regret on January 05, 2010, 06:47:47 PM
sounds like peedee
PD goes away when I turn off my computer, though.
I can't even accomplish a one man utopia, increasing the scale at all makes it seem impractical to me.
Quote from: Faust on January 05, 2010, 06:53:29 PM
I can't even accomplish a one man utopia, increasing the scale at all makes it seem impractical to me.
7 people is the absolute limit, and then only if at least 6 of them are passive types.
I like the cheap shity artist space idea, myself. It'd allow some seperation, no forced constant community, which is where I see humanity REALLY starting to fuck things up in any commune - esque idea.
I've got one or two scouted out in the NE, and am considering bailing to one if the current dwelling situation melts down.
EDIT: I forgot to include the post I was referring to.
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2010, 06:39:14 PM
This also reflects the life cycle of artist communities.
1) rents are cheap in a shitty part of town, usually ex-industrial.
2) starving artists rent the lofts, and violate building codes by living in them. No one cares, because it's a shitty part of the city.
3) the artists start helping each other out with food, repairs, safety, and ultimately artistic collaboration.
4) their block of the neighborhood becomes identified with "cutting edge art." Newspapers begin reporting the innovations coming out of the "downtown _____ scene."
5) middle-class pricks who want to seem cool buy up property in the area.
6) rent escalates, forcing the artists out and destroying the scene.
7) rinse and repeat.
This is why I think it is a better idea to actually acquire ownership of some piece of land. Chances are, someone will come in and steal it out from under you at some point, but I'd bet it will take them longer than LMNO's example.
I also forgot to mention in my first post that to make this idea work, you'll need a shitload of Luck. One of two things seems to happen to people who go out on a limb to live life on their own terms. If they are Lucky, they are fairly successful, sometimes very successful. As for the others, they get chewed up, digested, regurgitated and burned in a compost. I'm pretty sure that if there were a statistical analysis on this, I wouldn't want to see it.
If you can afford to buy property, you're probably already a middle-class prick.
LMNO
-"I'll be your mirror..."
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2010, 06:57:00 PM
If you can afford to buy property, you're probably already a middle-class prick.
LMNO
-"I'll be your mirror..."
Not necessarily. See the aforementioned -> Orange Twin.
I'm a middle class prick, looking for land.
but i don't want any hippy artists clogging it up with their colorfully muraled housing and crappy acoustic guitarring.
I would consider firearms to be an effective way of determining whether the land i find is suitable.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 07:11:42 PM
I'm a middle class prick, looking for land.
but i don't want any hippy artists clogging it up with their colorfully muraled housing and crappy acoustic guitarring.
I would consider firearms to be an effective way of determining whether the land i find is suitable.
Probably still doable. I think this falls in line with the "sharing a vision" thing.
Quote from: Vaudeville Vigilante on January 05, 2010, 07:48:24 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 07:11:42 PM
I'm a middle class prick, looking for land.
but i don't want any hippy artists clogging it up with their colorfully muraled housing and crappy acoustic guitarring.
I would consider firearms to be an effective way of determining whether the land i find is suitable.
Probably still doable. I think this falls in line with the "sharing a vision" thing.
Oh, I'm not looking for a commune.
Although it would be nice to live on adjoining pieces of property, and there would be significant logistical advantages, if necessary, I really just need to be within short travel distance from other tribe members.
As far as creating a society within society, as OP suggests, I still don't get it. What is the distinguishing characteristic that would set it apart from the rest of society? The only thing I saw was that there would be no hierarchy? Nobody works for anybody else? Or something about money?
Quote from: Cain on January 05, 2010, 03:21:16 PM
Isn't this just another way of proposing counter-economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics) and economic secession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_secession)? Lots of people talk the talk on the issue, even the Centre for A Stateless Society has had some pieces up on it recently (here (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/c4ss/~3/U7E0Rr_IuvE/1492) and here (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/c4ss/~3/SFtRfbZhWgM/1503) and here (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/c4ss/~3/blXgkCLSQgw/1520)) but few are walking the walk.
Which makes me wonder if
a) ignoring the state isn't as easy as it sounds, because the state has an active interest in expanding its power to every facet of social life, including your commune or whatever where you are trying to escape from, or
b) most libertarians and anarchists are dicks who are incapable of getting along with other people, or
c) something else is going on
I'll go with (a)
Also there actually are a fair amount of intentional communities based on anarchist concepts, they just aren't being loud about it. It is the failures that get press coverage.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 08:08:26 PM
As far as creating a society within society, as OP suggests, I still don’t get it. What is the distinguishing characteristic that would set it apart from the rest of society? The only thing I saw was that there would be no hierarchy? Nobody works for anybody else? Or something about money?
let's pretend for a moment that you're an anarchist. You don't want to live on the bottom rung of a hierarchal society. So you move in with your anarchist friends where you can live in peaceful anarchy. But you can't live in anarchy in a little suburban cul de sac. Because when you leave the house, you still have to pay taxes, you still have to pay rent, and that means getting a job and being a capitalist.
so there's this corporation, maybe it's a co-op, maybe it's a non-profit, whatever. And it owns some land, and you go live there, and you do something which helps it (which means everybody else) survive. And in trade it pays your taxes and doesn't charge you rent. And you can live in your anarchist utopia without ever having to stage a revolution.
If you carve out a commune in the middle of a capitalistic state, someone has to get their hands dirty guarding the borders.
Taxes still have to be paid, utility companies want their share, any food not homegrown must be bought. And someone has to either earn, collect donations, or donate their savings in order to satisfy the outside entities.
So, someone doesn't get to share in the utopia, because they have to keep the rest of the world out.
I think Cram just said the same thing, in the opposite direction.
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2010, 05:48:07 PM
As much as I want to say, "damn the Man", I really like indoor plumbing and electricity.
I was raised without indoor plumbing and I have to say it is over rated. An outhouse is way less hassle.
Now admittedly I wouldn't want to go outside to poop in the winter in the midwest, but on the west coast or in the south I see no reason why people should be pooping inside their houses, that's really pretty disgusting.
Who said anything about taking a shit? I want to take a hot shower every morning.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 08:08:26 PM
As far as creating a society within society, as OP suggests, I still don't get it. What is the distinguishing characteristic that would set it apart from the rest of society? The only thing I saw was that there would be no hierarchy? Nobody works for anybody else? Or something about money?
Possibly to escape the larger pitfalls of consumer driven society? I'd like to get out from underneath hierarchical structures, and I'd most definitely like to do what some of the good folks at Orange Twin are doing: spend not some but MOST of my time writing and making music and art, or fleshing out innovative ideas in a community of not same-minded but like-minded individuals. I think it would be much more satisfying to work hard for the basic necessities if the profits weren't all going to some gigantic corporate entity. I think a community with self-sustained electricity, food, water, etc. could potentially create a lot more free time for creative pursuits, critical thinking, and even idle fucking off than one in which you put in your 9 to 5 doing mindless shit for one company and then 6 to 10 for another, every day, hoping like hell you'll make that late payment on your utility bills before the Man comes in and shuts down the things you need to live.
Getting out from underneath a socially mandated schedule would be nice too. Imagine going to sleep when you are tired, waking up when you see fit, and then "working" for your own ends.
Ugh, I sound like an Idealist.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2010, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 08:08:26 PM
As far as creating a society within society, as OP suggests, I still don't get it. What is the distinguishing characteristic that would set it apart from the rest of society? The only thing I saw was that there would be no hierarchy? Nobody works for anybody else? Or something about money?
let's pretend for a moment that you're an anarchist. You don't want to live on the bottom rung of a hierarchal society. So you move in with your anarchist friends where you can live in peaceful anarchy. But you can't live in anarchy in a little suburban cul de sac. Because when you leave the house, you still have to pay taxes, you still have to pay rent, and that means getting a job and being a capitalist.
so there's this corporation, maybe it's a co-op, maybe it's a non-profit, whatever. And it owns some land, and you go live there, and you do something which helps it (which means everybody else) survive. And in trade it pays your taxes and doesn't charge you rent. And you can live in your anarchist utopia without ever having to stage a revolution.
People that don't make or spend money don't pay taxes. That's a big part of why the government will move to eliminate local currencies and barter.
Of course a small community is unlikely to be completely self sufficient, and if they are interfacing with the outside world money, and thus taxes, are going to come into play somewhere, but at that point they aren't really my taxes, they are the whole group's taxes.
Also, I don't really see a problem with paying taxes for the privilege of using the currency system that has it's value created by the force and imaginings of the government. It's only when they try to keep me from using alternate systems that I have an issue with it.
Admittedly there is also property tax on the space owned by the co-op.
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2010, 08:24:00 PM
If you carve out a commune in the middle of a capitalistic state, someone has to get their hands dirty guarding the borders.
why? what is the commune doing which requires the outside world to intervene?
they pay their taxes and utilities, and so long as they keep the noise down, I don't see why there need to be "guards".
I don't know too much about communes, but they faced these problems too - didn't people living there have to do something productive in order to keep living there? I recall reading in the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test that Ken Kesey's commune sold works of art, thew parties, and probably produced other stuff to sell to the outside world. They grew food AND bought food. Likely it was somebody's job to go into town and be a merchant or something.
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2010, 08:26:33 PM
Who said anything about taking a shit? I want to take a hot shower every morning.
That's easy. Showers are about the easiest sort of plumbing to rig and if you have access to water at all you can work out a decent shower system. Baths are, admittedly, even easier, but showers aren't much more difficult.
It is, admittedly, easier to have an outdoor shower, because of the problem of dealing with the drainage water, but that doesn't take all that much work to integrate into the house.
Of course, when I say "guarding", i meant more figuratively than literally.
some people cavort and play within the garden of delights, and some people pay the bills in order to keep the garden up and running.
Even the most ideal situation has its limitations, but I think minimizing your exposure to the negative effects of the larger consumer driven society is possible, and desirable. I'm pretty sure Orange Twin gets a break on some tax-related shit, because they are also involved in the effort to preserve/protect a wildlife area. There will still be taxes on certain things, and certainly still a need for money, but I would liken it to the difference between running a successful record label with your friends, and working FOR one. For me, it's really about having more creative control over my time, working hard at things worth working hard for.
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2010, 08:35:57 PM
Of course, when I say "guarding", i meant more figuratively than literally.
some people cavort and play within the garden of delights, and some people pay the bills in order to keep the garden up and running.
In any functioning intentional community everyone contributes in a meaningful way. Dealing with the outside world could be the function of some people, producing goods for sale to the outside world could be others, another could do repairs, another do gardening, depending on personal aptitudes. You just have to make sure you have a good balance of talents and preferences so that all the necessities are covered.
Vaud, you realize that Twin Orange isn't actually up and running yet, right?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on January 05, 2010, 08:42:00 PM
In any functioning intentional community everyone contributes in a meaningful way. Dealing with the outside world could be the function of some people, producing goods for sale to the outside world could be others, another could do repairs, another do gardening, depending on personal aptitudes. You just have to make sure you have a good balance of talents and preferences so that all the necessities are covered.
Yes.
If it's a co-op type deal, you're still paying your taxes, just collectively.
And you have to have some income for that even if you aren't buying anything from anybody outside the co-op. So the co-op has to have some revenue. I don't see anarchy holding up well there, unless it's really small (i.e. a single household) There's going to have to be some method of decision making. Somebody will be calling the shots. Unless that's you, you're the 'employee' of that guy, 'the boss'. So then you've decided that you want to work for a corporation that pays for your living quarters? (or own one that pays for your employee's living quarters)
I guess that's what LMNO just said, but I guess what I'm saying is, if you just don't want to be 'under' somebody else, then you want to be self sufficient, self employed, etc. that doesn't take a commune to do.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 08:47:50 PM
If it's a co-op type deal, you're still paying your taxes, just collectively.
And you have to have some income for that even if you aren't buying anything from anybody outside the co-op. So the co-op has to have some revenue. I don't see anarchy holding up well there, unless it's really small (i.e. a single household) There's going to have to be some method of decision making. Somebody will be calling the shots. Unless that's you, you're the 'employee' of that guy, 'the boss'. So then you've decided that you want to work for a corporation that pays for your living quarters? (or own one that pays for your employee's living quarters)
I guess that's what LMNO just said, but I guess what I'm saying is, if you just don't want to be 'under' somebody else, then you want to be self sufficient, self employed, etc. that doesn't take a commune to do.
There have been a lot of communes on a scale a bit larger than a single household (10 - 25 people) run on a consensus model. That does mean that meetings take for fucking ever, but that is worth it to some people. They can also be run on a direct democracy model, which is more common, and leads to quicker meetings, and still doesn't involve anyone being the owner.
Also, even if there is a boss (often called the guru) that is different than working for a corporation of any kind, it is working for a small (usually very small) business that takes care of your living quarters and is extensively involved in your life. Not the model I would choose, but I'd still prefer it to working for a large corporation, whether they were providing me housing or not. It is much more like being a part of a family at that point.
Quote from: LMNO on January 05, 2010, 08:44:03 PM
Vaud, you realize that Twin Orange isn't actually up and running yet, right?
Yes, it's been in the works for a little over five years now. I wasn't sure how up and running they've gotten things now, but I know a couple people from Athens involved with the project. They have successfully acquired a large amount of land, a good deal of money, contribution from a large collection of fairly successful artists and musicians, obtained and restored one house, and built several others. They used to have pictures of the couple of houses they've built, which were beautiful, magnificently constructed entirely out of environmentally safe materials. I'm not sure why they've taken that section down, but the project is continually developing. They have stored water wells, and last I heard they were working on installing solar powered generators. I think it's a very large step beyond your traditional 1960s hippie commune. As I said before, if it is to be successful, pulling something off like this takes a lot of dedication, planning, and organizing. And Luck.
yeah, if you have to read Robert's Rules of Order to come to decisions, then you're still gonna feel like you're in beauracracy land.
assuming that there are shared resources, I'd say that 10-25 people is a grey area between a household and a community... my intuition says that it would be unstable. Are there any that have been persistent that you know of?
If it's an ephemeral thing that couldn't survive the original members phasing out and new ones phasing in without collapsing or radically changing, then it would simply be more of a living arrangement than a society.
Quote from: Iptuous on January 05, 2010, 09:05:42 PM
yeah, if you have to read Robert's Rules of Order to come to decisions, then you're still gonna feel like you're in beauracracy land.
assuming that there are shared resources, I'd say that 10-25 people is a grey area between a household and a community... my intuition says that it would be unstable. Are there any that have been persistent that you know of?
If it's an ephemeral thing that couldn't survive the original members phasing out and new ones phasing in without collapsing or radically changing, then it would simply be more of a living arrangement than a society.
Yeah, the one I was raised on. It was going for I think about 10 years before my parents moved on. It's still going and that was 25 years ago.
I am sure there are others, that is just the one I have personal experience with. It certainly changed over time, but it is still the same entity it always was.
excellent!
i think this thread would benefit from a small description of the community and your experience growing up in it...
Did anyone look at the plans Orange Twin has up? These are pretty remarkable:
http://www.orangetwin.com/plans.html (http://www.orangetwin.com/plans.html)
I was raised in an intentional community known as the old MacCaulley farm. I moved there at 6 years old. At that point a fairly sizable group of the original members had moved off to relocate to a different commune, which was part of a cult. The Sonyasan cult specifically, an Indian thing (dot, not feather) The commune had started out with everyone in the same house but when my family moved in everyone had their own houses, in various degrees of completion, The one we moved into had half dirt floor, no indoor plumbing whatsoever, although we did have a sink on the front porch, a wood stove, and an electrical system based on car batteries. The sonyasons moved off the farm in waves, with my family being one of the first newer families to move in. The Farm is pretty big, about a five minute walk from the public road to my house, and about the same size in width. Mostly wooded, although there was both a front pasture (where my father kept our cow later on) and the back pasture (where we lived, along with another family, a single person in her own house, and a house that was unnoccupied, those sonyasons never sold their share) The land is owned in common although people own their own houses. There are also several buildings owned in common, one, called the farmhouse, has the washing machines, dryers, bathtub, shower, and for a while was the only building with grid electricity or a telephone. There are also 2 barns, a bunkhouse (used mostly for musical practicing) a machine shop, and a small building called "the store" because it was used for a while to distribute bulk goods bought in common, it later became just a place to hold a few refrigerators and freezers. There is also an orchard, which is mostly apple trees, along with some other fruit, and "the bluff" a rocky area with moss. There are 13 households on the farm, however during my time there 3 of them were unnoccupied.
I moved away before I was a full adult (granted at 19) so I did not take part in farm meetings where the community business was discussed. However I know that most decisions were made by a super majority of voting adults (2/3) but that for a share to be sold to anyone the new person had to be approved by a unanimous decision. I also know that farm meetings were held weekly, and tended to be viewed as a chore by pretty much everyone, but I think that is how it works running any organization. The adults did have outside jobs, although many worked only part time. My father was probably the most agriculturally oriented member, with the possible exception of my (now)stepmother. Other members had garden pots but my fathers was big enough for us to get most of our food from it. We also had chickens and a milk cow who was kept in the first barn. My father gave some of the milk to the other farm members for the privilege of monopolizing the barn and also sold milk to people in the larger community. We also had a pig at one point (not repeated because butchering them is a hassle) and my father raised cows for resale. Our nearest neighbor grew garlic which she resold and also made herbal tinctures.
The experience for me as a child was a lot like the way I have heard having a large extended family described. I had more freedom to wander than most children, but that came with the fact that I really couldn't get away with anything. There was always an adult fairly nearby, and I was accountable to all of them, not as much so as I was to my parents, but I still had to listen to them. There were monthly work parties to maintain the community buildings and areas and also lot of holidays were celebrated together. The farm is on a small island, which has a pretty tight knit community in general, and it is definitely integrated into that.
As far as I am aware none of the children of members ended up in the houses of their parents. There have not been any new farm members in about a decade, which means the population is mostly older, although some are still in their 30's and 40's.
Thanks for sharing that BH! pretty interesting.
In the vein of this thread, do you know how property taxes were handled? Did people operate fairly autonomously with regards to the law within the community (in spirit or practice... I mean was there a sense of 'separateness' that extended to how legal authority was viewed in any way?)
Quote from: Iptuous on January 06, 2010, 01:05:00 AM
Thanks for sharing that BH! pretty interesting.
In the vein of this thread, do you know how property taxes were handled? Did people operate fairly autonomously with regards to the law within the community (in spirit or practice... I mean was there a sense of 'separateness' that extended to how legal authority was viewed in any way?)
I believe that each person was responsible for their own property taxes, which were assessed on houses rather than on land in Washington State (I may be wrong about that, but that was my impression) As far as the law goes there were bylaws for the farm which were decided in meetings and could be changed although I believe that took a bigger majority than simpler decisions. I know that the bylaws of the farm tended to disregard the laws of the outside world, as, for instance, farm members were allowed to grow a certain amount of marijuana, but not more than that. Policing on the island tends to be fairly laid back in any case, and nobody ever got busted for it. I think my father may have dealt weed when I was young as i remember him bringing garbage bags full of it to friends who lived off island. he called it a gift, but it was an awful lot. I never saw any cash being exchanged though.
Generally the local police let the farm handle farm business as far as things that happened there, I don't recall them ever being called in to settle a dispute except in one case when the EMT's were called because I had a bit more LSD than I could handle (I was a teenager at the time) and by their procedure the police had to come out. Once they got there though they didn't interact with me and stayed out of the way and no criminal charges of any sort were brought. It is possible they would have responded the same way to a non farm kid having a bad drug experience as well though.
Any place I move to has to have a flushing toilet, and decent Internet, the hippie style commune isn't for me.
As for organization, yes you need people who interface with the outside. Personally I don't mind that, what I want isn't even to avoid the corporate world as much as security and the option to not be part of it every now and then without actually being unemployed.
Managers are not really a bad thing either. Done right management makes you more efficient, even if only by making sure that you don't have 10 people working on one job that only needs 5 while another job gets neglected. What's needed is a recognition that managers aren't special. In the 'real' world the managers have somehow convinced us that they should get huge paychecks, and have their asses kissed, and have a right to fuck you over if you don't give them those things, even though they're just other employees of the company.
I read How to Start your own Country, and it gave me the same idea. A larger number of smaller nations seems like a nice idea, though given most countries' desire to expand, it would be difficult to maintain.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2010, 02:57:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 18, 2010, 09:55:15 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2010, 02:57:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Kai on May 18, 2010, 10:04:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 18, 2010, 09:55:15 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2010, 02:57:46 PM
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.
speaking of which dok, you look at the spagbook lately?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 18, 2010, 10:06:01 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 18, 2010, 10:04:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 18, 2010, 09:55:15 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2010, 02:57:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Kai on May 18, 2010, 11:56:07 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 18, 2010, 10:06:01 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 18, 2010, 10:04:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 18, 2010, 09:55:15 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on January 05, 2010, 02:57:46 PM
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? :lol:
Dok,
Does that all the time.
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.
so then if you want to avoid human drama, avoid living with humans.
:roflcake:
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.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 19, 2010, 03:00:56 PM
so then if you want to avoid human drama, avoid living with humans.
:roflcake:
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.
people renting a house together is a bit smaller scale than forming an intentional community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 19, 2010, 04:37:38 PM
people renting a house together is a bit smaller scale than forming an intentional community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 04:54:50 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on May 19, 2010, 04:37:38 PM
people renting a house together is a bit smaller scale than forming an intentional community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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, 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?
Quote from: Cramulus on May 19, 2010, 05:06:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 04:54:50 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on May 19, 2010, 04:37:38 PM
people renting a house together is a bit smaller scale than forming an intentional community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 05:08:41 PM
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.
All I know is that I spent a long time around fairly self-sufficient farms in Ontario.
The work was NEVER done.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 05:26:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 03:18:16 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on May 19, 2010, 03:00:56 PM
so then if you want to avoid human drama, avoid living with humans.
:roflcake:
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.
Sounds like a community house to me. IMO, the best way of living, and how I want to end up someday.
Life is full of hard work, no matter where you live or what work you do. I've worked on farms before and for me it was pretty satisfying work. Sure it was hard work (sitting at this desk is much easier) but it was enjoyable work for me. In fact, I'd argue that it was probably less stressful and more healthy than my current job.
But, to each their own, ya know? Some people are willing to slave for the machine, so that they're close to lots of people, concerts, clubs, events and a wide swath of friends and a feeling of personal freedom. Some people are willing to slave for the Earth, so that they're away from the press of mindless hoards of monkeys, free of the PoPo man looking over their shoulder and a feeling of personal freedom.
Most of the 'off-grid' people I've talked to have a balance. They have a garden large enough to serve their needs, hunt (and maybe have some ckickens or some small game) and have something else they do via the Internet to make most of their money. One guy is an architect that is self employed. He rarely needs to leave his home for work and schedules his client meetings so that he can manage them all on a day trip. Another person runs websites and generally those just make money without any sort of daily work.
We're slowly moving past the City Mouse/Country Mouse dichotomy. :wink:
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 07:18:29 PM
Life is full of hard work, no matter where you live or what work you do. I've worked on farms before and for me it was pretty satisfying work. Sure it was hard work (sitting at this desk is much easier) but it was enjoyable work for me. In fact, I'd argue that it was probably less stressful and more healthy than my current job.
But, to each their own, ya know? Some people are willing to slave for the machine, so that they're close to lots of people, concerts, clubs, events and a wide swath of friends and a feeling of personal freedom. Some people are willing to slave for the Earth, so that they're away from the press of mindless hoards of monkeys, free of the PoPo man looking over their shoulder and a feeling of personal freedom.
Most of the 'off-grid' people I've talked to have a balance. They have a garden large enough to serve their needs, hunt (and maybe have some ckickens or some small game) and have something else they do via the Internet to make most of their money. One guy is an architect that is self employed. He rarely needs to leave his home for work and schedules his client meetings so that he can manage them all on a day trip. Another person runs websites and generally those just make money without any sort of daily work.
We're slowly moving past the City Mouse/Country Mouse dichotomy. :wink:
So, basically we're down to the "it's only viable for a few people, and only if they can live off society's leftovers" conclusion. That's the same for freegans, btw.
I still like my community house idea.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 07:18:29 PM
Life is full of hard work, no matter where you live or what work you do. I've worked on farms before and for me it was pretty satisfying work. Sure it was hard work (sitting at this desk is much easier) but it was enjoyable work for me. In fact, I'd argue that it was probably less stressful and more healthy than my current job.
But, to each their own, ya know? Some people are willing to slave for the machine, so that they're close to lots of people, concerts, clubs, events and a wide swath of friends and a feeling of personal freedom. Some people are willing to slave for the Earth, so that they're away from the press of mindless hoards of monkeys, free of the PoPo man looking over their shoulder and a feeling of personal freedom.
Most of the 'off-grid' people I've talked to have a balance. They have a garden large enough to serve their needs, hunt (and maybe have some ckickens or some small game) and have something else they do via the Internet to make most of their money. One guy is an architect that is self employed. He rarely needs to leave his home for work and schedules his client meetings so that he can manage them all on a day trip. Another person runs websites and generally those just make money without any sort of daily work.
We're slowly moving past the City Mouse/Country Mouse dichotomy. :wink:
So they're not really off the grid, just telecommuting.
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:20:52 PM
I still like my community house idea.
There's a co-op housing community in my neighborhood. It's a square of condos around a communal courtyard. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but everyone seems to help out around the place; it looks like everyone gets to have their own house/apartment, but still shares in the responsibities and expenses.
They look happy, so I guess it's working.
Quote from: LMNO on May 19, 2010, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:20:52 PM
I still like my community house idea.
There's a co-op housing community in my neighborhood. It's a square of condos around a communal courtyard. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but everyone seems to help out around the place; it looks like everyone gets to have their own house/apartment, but still shares in the responsibities and expenses.
They look happy, so I guess it's working.
Yep, that's the type. There's a lot of those places in Toronto, except squeezed down to a single building.
We never quite lost our tribal tendencies as humans, and a community house/ co-op housing satisfies that. For me, anyway.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 07:20:59 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 07:18:29 PM
Life is full of hard work, no matter where you live or what work you do. I've worked on farms before and for me it was pretty satisfying work. Sure it was hard work (sitting at this desk is much easier) but it was enjoyable work for me. In fact, I'd argue that it was probably less stressful and more healthy than my current job.
But, to each their own, ya know? Some people are willing to slave for the machine, so that they're close to lots of people, concerts, clubs, events and a wide swath of friends and a feeling of personal freedom. Some people are willing to slave for the Earth, so that they're away from the press of mindless hoards of monkeys, free of the PoPo man looking over their shoulder and a feeling of personal freedom.
Most of the 'off-grid' people I've talked to have a balance. They have a garden large enough to serve their needs, hunt (and maybe have some ckickens or some small game) and have something else they do via the Internet to make most of their money. One guy is an architect that is self employed. He rarely needs to leave his home for work and schedules his client meetings so that he can manage them all on a day trip. Another person runs websites and generally those just make money without any sort of daily work.
We're slowly moving past the City Mouse/Country Mouse dichotomy. :wink:
So they're not really off the grid, just telecommuting.
No, 'off the grid' means that they are self sufficient and don't rely on 'the grid' for electricity, gas etc. Most of the people I've talked to don't seem to want to be completely removed from society, but they want to be able to exist in modern society without paying out monthly bills to what they see as antiquated or overpriced services. A lot of them are pushing the minimal impact idea (low carbon footprint, low ecological impact etc). I thought it was interesting how there were a number of different reasons given for living this sort of lifestyle, from these somewhat altruistic ones to the more fringe (like the family I mentioned that home schools their kids to 'protect them').
Off the Grid, but on the net seems to be an interesting concept that's trying to merge the best of both worlds.
Except "self sufficient" means something different.
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:47:01 PM
Except "self sufficient" means something different.
I meant self-sufficiency in the sense used to discuss sustainable living, not self-sufficiency as in a closed economy.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:47:01 PM
Except "self sufficient" means something different.
I meant self-sufficiency in the sense used to discuss sustainable living, not self-sufficiency as in a closed economy.
In that case, I'm already self-sufficient.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:47:01 PM
Except "self sufficient" means something different.
I meant self-sufficiency in the sense used to discuss sustainable living, not self-sufficiency as in a closed economy.
In that case, I'm already self-sufficient.
Dok, just cause the city won't let you use their sewage system anymore doesn't mean you're self-sufficient... it just means you plug the pipes up too often.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 09:49:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:47:01 PM
Except "self sufficient" means something different.
I meant self-sufficiency in the sense used to discuss sustainable living, not self-sufficiency as in a closed economy.
In that case, I'm already self-sufficient.
Dok, just cause the city won't let you use their sewage system anymore doesn't mean you're self-sufficient... it just means you plug the pipes up too often.
Okay, Rat, seriously. You just went from off the grid is self sufficiency, which is sustainable living, but it ISN'T sustainable living, just my personal definition of what sustainable happens to be.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 09:49:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:47:01 PM
Except "self sufficient" means something different.
I meant self-sufficiency in the sense used to discuss sustainable living, not self-sufficiency as in a closed economy.
In that case, I'm already self-sufficient.
Dok, just cause the city won't let you use their sewage system anymore doesn't mean you're self-sufficient... it just means you plug the pipes up too often.
That's okay. I've taken to shitting in the city garden.
I like to think of it as my contribution to a sustainable place for DAs to sit on their lunch hour.
Quote from: Cramulus on May 19, 2010, 05:06:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 04:54:50 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on May 19, 2010, 04:37:38 PM
people renting a house together is a bit smaller scale than forming an intentional community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
Actually, most of them had outside jobs, and those that didn't the "crops" they sold were weed. Some people (my dad, the woman who later became my stepmom and one of the other families) grew enough food that we could have theoretically lived entirely on it, but we still bought things like cheese, which dad never got the hang of making, and flour, which takes more acreage to grow than we had available. Most people bought the majority of their food. We had our own water system and most of us were off grid as far as electricity goes, outhouses instead of sewage, but we were not a fully autonomous commune like some. The non weed crops on the farm were pretty much entirely for internal consumption with the exception of the milk from dad's cow, cause cows produce a LOT of milk and just the people on the farm could not have drunk it all.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 07:18:29 PM
Life is full of hard work, no matter where you live or what work you do. I've worked on farms before and for me it was pretty satisfying work. Sure it was hard work (sitting at this desk is much easier) but it was enjoyable work for me. In fact, I'd argue that it was probably less stressful and more healthy than my current job.
But, to each their own, ya know? Some people are willing to slave for the machine, so that they're close to lots of people, concerts, clubs, events and a wide swath of friends and a feeling of personal freedom. Some people are willing to slave for the Earth, so that they're away from the press of mindless hoards of monkeys, free of the PoPo man looking over their shoulder and a feeling of personal freedom.
Most of the 'off-grid' people I've talked to have a balance. They have a garden large enough to serve their needs, hunt (and maybe have some ckickens or some small game) and have something else they do via the Internet to make most of their money. One guy is an architect that is self employed. He rarely needs to leave his home for work and schedules his client meetings so that he can manage them all on a day trip. Another person runs websites and generally those just make money without any sort of daily work.
We're slowly moving past the City Mouse/Country Mouse dichotomy. :wink:
Chickens are a huge gift to the gardener. They eat your garbage, they till up soil and fertilize it too, really perfect for using in a rotation with crops. Let an area rest and let the chickens into it while it does and you get giant vegetables there next year. They also aren't that much work, nowhere near as much as a cow or pigs.
I would like such a community house thingy Kai mentioned.
As long as people stay the fuck out of my room(unless invited, obviously).
I imagine it is a bit cheaper too.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 20, 2010, 07:47:15 AM
Actually, most of them had outside jobs, and those that didn't the "crops" they sold were weed. Some people (my dad, the woman who later became my stepmom and one of the other families) grew enough food that we could have theoretically lived entirely on it, but we still bought things like cheese, which dad never got the hang of making, and flour, which takes more acreage to grow than we had available. Most people bought the majority of their food. We had our own water system and most of us were off grid as far as electricity goes, outhouses instead of sewage, but we were not a fully autonomous commune like some. The non weed crops on the farm were pretty much entirely for internal consumption with the exception of the milk from dad's cow, cause cows produce a LOT of milk and just the people on the farm could not have drunk it all.
Hm, a shame your dad couldnt get the hang of making cheese. Cause cheese is a great way of using up surplus milk.
What's so hard about it btw? You need rennet, and that's it, basically. If you want fancy cheese, you can use a little chunk or blue fluff of whatever you want as a starting culture and that works too.
Ok I never tried it because the only place I could find rennet was the eco green hippie store and they sold it (like everything) at an insane price.
But I did make paneer a few times, which is as easy as squirting a lemon into two litres of milk, adding some cumin and salt, boiling shortly and straining the liquid from the curds. Then you press it and optionally smoke it or burn the outside.
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 09:56:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 09:49:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:47:01 PM
Except "self sufficient" means something different.
I meant self-sufficiency in the sense used to discuss sustainable living, not self-sufficiency as in a closed economy.
In that case, I'm already self-sufficient.
Dok, just cause the city won't let you use their sewage system anymore doesn't mean you're self-sufficient... it just means you plug the pipes up too often.
Okay, Rat, seriously. You just went from off the grid is self sufficiency, which is sustainable living, but it ISN'T sustainable living, just my personal definition of what sustainable happens to be.
Wait, what? I think I'm confused and maybe I should have clarified my terms :(
"Off the Grid" in the sense I am using it can be defined as "living in a self-sufficient manner without reliance on one or more public utilities." That's how its used by the people I talked to and that's how I used it... Sorry if that was unclear :)
'self-sufficiency' in the usage here means that the home is capable of running without external resources, particularly fossil fuels. IE it requires no outside resources for energy generation etc.
Sustainable Living I meant as the process of reducing your use of natural resources by altering your lifestyle (carbon footprint, transportation, food choices etc).
Now, its entirely possible that the people I've talked to are using these words improperly. If so, then sorry for any confusion.
In the instance of these Earthships, they are 'off the grid' in that they are not connected to public utilities. Many of the individuals/families are "self-sufficient" since the energy they use and the crops they grow mean that they don't rely on grocery stores, utilities etc. And they consider it sustainable living because its a drastically reduced carbon footprint, water is cycled so that gray water is automatically pumped into the garden, sewage is incinerated in a solar toilet system that creates good planting soil. Also, they're big on earthships not impacting the environment in the way that wood/brick houses do.
So, besides using the Internet to make money, they don't really rely on the outside for anything.
Which terms should I use for that sort of living?
Because somebody can be living sustainably and yet still be "on the grid".
Which lead to:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:47:01 PM
Except "self sufficient" means something different.
I meant self-sufficiency in the sense used to discuss sustainable living, not self-sufficiency as in a closed economy.
In that case, I'm already self-sufficient.
Yes? Or have I misinterpreted your terms /again/?
Quote from: Kai on May 20, 2010, 05:18:06 PM
Because somebody can be living sustainably and yet still be "on the grid".
Which lead to:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:47:01 PM
Except "self sufficient" means something different.
I meant self-sufficiency in the sense used to discuss sustainable living, not self-sufficiency as in a closed economy.
In that case, I'm already self-sufficient.
Yes? Or have I misinterpreted your terms /again/?
Nah, I think I used the wrong word there.
I should have defined the terms like I just did in the last post.
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 20, 2010, 01:23:13 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 20, 2010, 07:47:15 AM
Actually, most of them had outside jobs, and those that didn't the "crops" they sold were weed. Some people (my dad, the woman who later became my stepmom and one of the other families) grew enough food that we could have theoretically lived entirely on it, but we still bought things like cheese, which dad never got the hang of making, and flour, which takes more acreage to grow than we had available. Most people bought the majority of their food. We had our own water system and most of us were off grid as far as electricity goes, outhouses instead of sewage, but we were not a fully autonomous commune like some. The non weed crops on the farm were pretty much entirely for internal consumption with the exception of the milk from dad's cow, cause cows produce a LOT of milk and just the people on the farm could not have drunk it all.
Hm, a shame your dad couldnt get the hang of making cheese. Cause cheese is a great way of using up surplus milk.
What's so hard about it btw? You need rennet, and that's it, basically. If you want fancy cheese, you can use a little chunk or blue fluff of whatever you want as a starting culture and that works too.
Ok I never tried it because the only place I could find rennet was the eco green hippie store and they sold it (like everything) at an insane price.
But I did make paneer a few times, which is as easy as squirting a lemon into two litres of milk, adding some cumin and salt, boiling shortly and straining the liquid from the curds. Then you press it and optionally smoke it or burn the outside.
I've also made paneer, it's easy and fun, and my dad was actually fairly decent at making fresh cheese. The problem was aging it. After it had been aged a while it came out tasting like unwashed feet. I think the problem was the wax personally, but after making a mess of it a couple times dad decided to stick with yogurt, butter and ice cream, all of which he made pretty well.
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 20, 2010, 05:15:04 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 09:56:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 09:49:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:47:01 PM
Except "self sufficient" means something different.
I meant self-sufficiency in the sense used to discuss sustainable living, not self-sufficiency as in a closed economy.
In that case, I'm already self-sufficient.
Dok, just cause the city won't let you use their sewage system anymore doesn't mean you're self-sufficient... it just means you plug the pipes up too often.
Okay, Rat, seriously. You just went from off the grid is self sufficiency, which is sustainable living, but it ISN'T sustainable living, just my personal definition of what sustainable happens to be.
Wait, what? I think I'm confused and maybe I should have clarified my terms :(
"Off the Grid" in the sense I am using it can be defined as "living in a self-sufficient manner without reliance on one or more public utilities." That's how its used by the people I talked to and that's how I used it... Sorry if that was unclear :)
'self-sufficiency' in the usage here means that the home is capable of running without external resources, particularly fossil fuels. IE it requires no outside resources for energy generation etc.
Sustainable Living I meant as the process of reducing your use of natural resources by altering your lifestyle (carbon footprint, transportation, food choices etc).
Now, its entirely possible that the people I've talked to are using these words improperly. If so, then sorry for any confusion.
In the instance of these Earthships, they are 'off the grid' in that they are not connected to public utilities. Many of the individuals/families are "self-sufficient" since the energy they use and the crops they grow mean that they don't rely on grocery stores, utilities etc. And they consider it sustainable living because its a drastically reduced carbon footprint, water is cycled so that gray water is automatically pumped into the garden, sewage is incinerated in a solar toilet system that creates good planting soil. Also, they're big on earthships not impacting the environment in the way that wood/brick houses do.
So, besides using the Internet to make money, they don't really rely on the outside for anything.
Which terms should I use for that sort of living?
I think the issue may have been that the internet is a public utility.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 21, 2010, 03:38:22 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 20, 2010, 05:15:04 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 09:56:28 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 09:49:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 19, 2010, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 19, 2010, 08:16:55 PM
Quote from: Kai on May 19, 2010, 07:47:01 PM
Except "self sufficient" means something different.
I meant self-sufficiency in the sense used to discuss sustainable living, not self-sufficiency as in a closed economy.
In that case, I'm already self-sufficient.
Dok, just cause the city won't let you use their sewage system anymore doesn't mean you're self-sufficient... it just means you plug the pipes up too often.
Okay, Rat, seriously. You just went from off the grid is self sufficiency, which is sustainable living, but it ISN'T sustainable living, just my personal definition of what sustainable happens to be.
Wait, what? I think I'm confused and maybe I should have clarified my terms :(
"Off the Grid" in the sense I am using it can be defined as "living in a self-sufficient manner without reliance on one or more public utilities." That's how its used by the people I talked to and that's how I used it... Sorry if that was unclear :)
'self-sufficiency' in the usage here means that the home is capable of running without external resources, particularly fossil fuels. IE it requires no outside resources for energy generation etc.
Sustainable Living I meant as the process of reducing your use of natural resources by altering your lifestyle (carbon footprint, transportation, food choices etc).
Now, its entirely possible that the people I've talked to are using these words improperly. If so, then sorry for any confusion.
In the instance of these Earthships, they are 'off the grid' in that they are not connected to public utilities. Many of the individuals/families are "self-sufficient" since the energy they use and the crops they grow mean that they don't rely on grocery stores, utilities etc. And they consider it sustainable living because its a drastically reduced carbon footprint, water is cycled so that gray water is automatically pumped into the garden, sewage is incinerated in a solar toilet system that creates good planting soil. Also, they're big on earthships not impacting the environment in the way that wood/brick houses do.
So, besides using the Internet to make money, they don't really rely on the outside for anything.
Which terms should I use for that sort of living?
I think the issue may have been that the internet is a public utility.
Which is why I said that its no longer City Mouse OR Country Mouse. We're gonna end up with a hybrid.
The net and modern technology means that people will be able to live way the fuck out of the way, and still make money. People will be able to dedicate hours a day to their gardens, generators, home building AND STILL make teh monies on teh Net.
The old 60's hippie idea of being 100% disconnected can still work, there are still some Utopian groups that cling to that view... but the future of communes/self-sufficient systems etc... are, in my opinion, gonna use the Internet to generate easy money. Site management, component development for CMS solutions like Joomla, Drupal, etc. Graphic design etc etc can all be done from home. If you're not paying energy costs, grocery costs etc that money can easily be sufficient to live on.
I don't think being completely separate from society is the way to go... separate from urban life while still making money off of it though... that seems doable to me and the net makes it easy. I know a guy that runs some of these stupid aggregate sites that are filled with banner ads... He makes thousands of dollars a year on sites that he does little to nothing to manage... he doesn't eve create the content, its crazy.