A little something I've wrote recently in
response to an online discussion:
I think the point is we all have to decide
what kind of relationships we want to strive for, be they intimate, work
related or community related.
I do not want drama, conflict or a lot of
haggling over to making decisions; and I don't think a lot of other people
do either. I think it's one of the primary reasons people have so little
interest in intentional community-they just don't see any other way.
However, I believe I see a way to live without conflict, in community. It's
simple. It's about agreeing on basic precepts, norms, ethics and goals and a
few basic rules upfront. Maybe this is a mistake, I don't know. Maybe this
isn't the consensual way. But I personally do not see any other way to avoid
conflict; and just as importantly, being victim to certain individuals power
or ego trips trying to dominate.
Of course, consensus is always there and
should be to fundamentally change the basics. And it should be. But it
should be known also, right from the start, that to fundamentally change
something always contains within that movement or decision the possibility
of ending the thing or ending it for certain people. This is probably
another reason why people are so afraid of intentional community. The
ultimate reality is that there really isn't anything one could do to
(absolutely) prevent something, a community, morphing into something
undesirable or failing altogether; but the more people that were involved
who were happy and shared certain ethics and goals in common, that failure
would seem more and more unlikely.
Rules, and agreeing on the ethics and goals
upfront may be why some people don't like that approach; it removes any
possibility of one individual being able to unduly dominate or influence (or
be disruptive for that matter to) others or the group. In other words, if
somebody didn't like what was happening or what somebody was doing and that
person didn't break the original agreements the complaining person person
would just be referred back to the original ethics, norms and goals and
rules.
I don't believe I've ever hidden my original
intent or vision. I have always said that I thought a large parcel of land
was necessary and that the only economic restrictions should be to not
engage in usury, that agriculture should be organic and that there should be
a community rule that says everything, whether it involves business or
personal use, should be subject to a 100% recycling stipulation. Beyond this
I wanted people to do whatever they wanted, as much as they wanted to. I
realize there may be some imperfections in this design, but I'm far more
less worried about those imperfections than I would be about stymieing
peoples natural desire to pursue their interests and be productive.
I think the book "the Art of Making a Living"
is an excellent book, but I think most know quite well what they would like
to be doing to make a living. What's holding them back, holding us back, is
resources, people to do it with, and a situation where there is time and
there is not a tremendous need for money to take care life's basic
necessities.
Like I said, I'm more worried about holding
people back then letting them "at it". Not just as I said, because we all
have a lot of energy, and it needs to be directed, we, I believe, want to be
productive, and have a great need and desire to create and be productive.
But besides all this, there is a financial, or simply meeting one's own, or
community needs. I would rather err on the side of abundance than I would on
not having enough; enough work, enough money or enough stuff to trade. But
for abundance to happen, people have to be given a lot of freedom and
support. I realize there are potential dangers with abundance, but I believe
the danger of not having enough is a far greater danger.
I've always said I want there to be land for
organic farmers to farm. I don't know what would ultimately make sense, but
again I'd rather err on too much than too little. In a community of say 200
adults, there might be 10 or 20 farmers; this might involve a hundred acres
of land. But I don't see how we can support musicians, artists, scientists,
craftsmen, people engaged in production and business.....fully, and not also
support farmers. Supporting everyone fully, I believe, will be good for
community. It may very well create some "jobs" for people who need a little
something on the side.
In conclusion, in envisioning a community of
say 200 adults and 75 children, it almost goes without saying, it is a
vision of wonderfully self-motivated and vital productivity and activity.
Yet, it also contains the option for as much aloneness as one would desire
as well. (Eating in a communal facility I do not see as a imposition on
one's aloneness, I see it as a healthy support to it) Again, another reason
for a large amount of land is so people and activity can be spread out in
such a way that those who need quiet and privacy can those needs met.
