Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was just looking at that site - they have a fairly comprehensive blueprint for starting and running an "intentional community" - might be of help to the OP.
160 acres..ye sure it's in Utah and in the middle of nowhere....but land could be purchased out right...(no bank involvement at all)...now 10,15,20 people would just have to decide what to do with it...
Commercialize it?, chop it up into smaller parcels and sell for a profit? (could turn around and sell 10 acre parcels at 10,000 each....now were talking 1.6 million in return from an original 18,37 hundred investment...
Point being...pooled money can make you more money....
But no money, or little money, will only go towards winter heat bill...
You have to ask yourself one thing - WHY 160 acres for $37,000?
Is there no water? Is the water alkaline or does it have other poisons in it?
Is there no access, especially in the winter?
Is there no animal forage?
Has the soil been overused and overplanted? Was there a mine on it with poisonous tailings left everywhere?
Now - if you move 10, 20, or 30 people from all walks of life into an area that has limited access and limited jobs, this will skew your income levels. Have you ever been to Box Elder County, in Utah? I have, on the way to my brother's place in Idaho.. Do you think that you can introduce 10, 20, or 30 people there and ensure that they all (or even half) get jobs - even minimum wage jobs? There are usually REASONS property is "cheap" - and you need to know those reasons before you commit to it.
I read your blog, and what I see, there and here, is an attitude of unfairness and blame of "rich people" for your inability to achieve what it is that you say you want. You will attract other people with the same mindset. And while you may feel justified in feeling that way, you are not alone - there are a lot of folks who do. And no matter what, those that are drawn to you and your startup will maintain that same attitude - especially when they have to go hay cattle in a Force 3 blizzard, when they have to weed a garden in 100 degree heat, or when they have to stand for hours over a stove canning produce for next year, or pound fence posts and string barbed wire, or chop wood for the communal stove for next winter.
Living off the land isn't fun, isn't a game, isn't a series of picnics under the trees with occasional work interrupting your enjoyment of nature. It takes planning and endless work. Most people who blame the rich for all of their problems and inability to succeed will not want or be able to do the work required to succeed... and they can always find someone to blame, whether their co-workers or - you. After all, you PROMISED...
You would probably list me in the "rich" group, in spite of the fact that I started out homeless in the back of a pickup in NC in winter with a small child and a lazy useless husband. I got rid of the lazy husband and later remarried, and with DH we worked - 2 + 3 jobs apiece - to get what we wanted. We were frugal, we planned and saved and worked hard - and we bought our own property, a 900 sq foot house on 3/4 of an acre. We raised chickens and had a year round garden. Then - we sold it and bought 60 acres with a 100-year-old farmhouse, 1700 miles away. It is ours, and we're not starting a commune - because we know that most people don't have our work ethic, don't have the experience and knowledge we garnered from years of planning, saving, and doing without. We know that owning one's own land means that you shoud have an investment in it, not just of money but of the heart, a desire to achieve, create, and become. Most people who want to join a commune simply don't have that drive - they want to be taken care of, and we are not altruists.
You are very much mistaken in your premise that "rich people" get that way because rich people work together. Rich people set goals, determine what they need to reach those goals, and bust their azzes to get there. Many times they are the mavericks, the ones who stand apart from the herd, not the ones who run with the herd. They know what they want and they are willing to do anything to get it. The question is, how many of the people you attract are independent enough to think and plan and reason - who won't be expected to not only carry the load for others, but lead the lazy and entitled to what they feel they deserve?
Even tho DH and I have been invited several times to join communes, we have cheerfully refused. No thanks. We know that what we have gotten we have earned with our own efforts, and we take personal responsibility for everything - our successes and our failures. In communes, work and blame are not equally shared - and I work for no one else's comfort, and excuse no one from their labors, not even myself.
You have accurately described exactly the problems both with communes, "intentional communities", and with the protesters in New York, there is a component of society that want everything for free so they don't have to invest the work, sacrifice weekends and holidays, spend hours upon hours at a job or several jobs to not only survive, but get ahead.
Too many people I see coming out here to my state think that farming/ranching are 8 hours a day/5 days a week propositions. They have no idea what is actually entailed by the needs of growing, planting, harvesting, birthing your calves/lambs/piglets and processing/preserving the foods for storage.
It is much easier to do your shift, come home and grab a beer and watch football on TV instead of working in your garden or taking care of your stock for another 8 hours after your "paying" job.
Just getting enough wood to heat with can require multiple days of work to cut the timber and get it home, then it has to be chopped and stacked, and you will need a wood shed or shelter to keep it dry, which could mean construction if a building isn't available, then you have to keep your stove and chimney in good condition by removing ashes, cleaning the chimney to avoid fires, and even then, you have to get up during the night to restock the fire to keep your pipes from freezing in harsh conditions like in my state when the mercury drops below zero and forgets to come back up.
Any time you leave your house for work or to shop, the fires may be out before you get home and the house is cold.
I use this as an example because even the most simple things like heating your home take on a new dimension when you do it yourself.
Most people prefer simply setting the thermostat, and writing a check once a month and not having to think about it.
Everything you do when you provide for yourself is work multiplied because you are not paying someone else to do it for you. What modern society does is allow folks to simply work for 40 hours a week, and then pay for services from water/sewer and power companies. Someone else handles trash, somebody else does the tuneups on your car. The farmer and rancher grow your food, someone else grows the cotton, weaves it into cloth and then sits at a sewing machine to make your clothes. If you have a problem with your car, you take it to a garage where someone else fixes it.
It is a society of specialists. Everybody knows how to do something well, but have no idea how to do other things that are necessary to keep body and soul together.
Most people don't have to think about brucelocis or black leg or scours in their calf crop because they don't have one. They don't have to worry about leaving their nice warm bed on a Saturday morning to go out in -30 temps with a wind chill to feed the stock and do the milking. They don't know how to stich up a wire cut on a horse, or fight mastitis in a milk cow. Veterinarians are expensive, so if you are living a homesteader life you have to learn to do things like give shots or pull calves by yourself.
While the idea of being completely self sufficent is very romantic in todays society, it is not practicable for the vast majority because they have no idea what they are getting into or how to start.
I commend those who can actually do this, but not everybody can and the sheer volume of work that must be done every day working 12/14/16 hours 7 days a week is not for just anybody.
Doing it yourself makes you the only one responsible for your production. You can't blame the rich or somebody else for your failures.
It is the epitomy of personal responsiblility, and there are very few around these days who can really say that they accept that responsiblity because it is so much easier to blame someone else for your shortfalls and failings.
Example, "the rich won't give me the job I want". BULL.
Do the work, get the education or training, put in the hours, be financially responsible and you too could be "rich" instead of whining and bellyaching about someone else keeping you down. This isn't medival Europe, and we aren't serfs. We have our own destiny and success or failure right in our own hands.
What we do with our opportunities and abilities is our choice, not someone elses.
There is a difference in philosophy between a commune and a co-op. I prefer the latter to the former. When I lived in New York in the early 70's co-op buildings was an very positive emerging development. At the time groups of folks would find a dilapidated building and would pay towards the purchase price and expend some sweat equity, unfortunately this was the precursor for condominium except they do not have the spirit of mutual cooperation that co-op's exhibit.
You have to ask yourself one thing - WHY 160 acres for $37,000?
Is there no water? Is the water alkaline or does it have other poisons in it?
Is there no access, especially in the winter?
Is there no animal forage?
Has the soil been overused and overplanted? Was there a mine on it with poisonous tailings left everywhere?
Now - if you move 10, 20, or 30 people from all walks of life into an area that has limited access and limited jobs, this will skew your income levels. Have you ever been to Box Elder County, in Utah? I have, on the way to my brother's place in Idaho.. Do you think that you can introduce 10, 20, or 30 people there and ensure that they all (or even half) get jobs - even minimum wage jobs? There are usually REASONS property is "cheap" - and you need to know those reasons before you commit to it.
I read your blog, and what I see, there and here, is an attitude of unfairness and blame of "rich people" for your inability to achieve what it is that you say you want. You will attract other people with the same mindset. And while you may feel justified in feeling that way, you are not alone - there are a lot of folks who do. And no matter what, those that are drawn to you and your startup will maintain that same attitude - especially when they have to go hay cattle in a Force 3 blizzard, when they have to weed a garden in 100 degree heat, or when they have to stand for hours over a stove canning produce for next year, or pound fence posts and string barbed wire, or chop wood for the communal stove for next winter.
Living off the land isn't fun, isn't a game, isn't a series of picnics under the trees with occasional work interrupting your enjoyment of nature. It takes planning and endless work. Most people who blame the rich for all of their problems and inability to succeed will not want or be able to do the work required to succeed... and they can always find someone to blame, whether their co-workers or - you. After all, you PROMISED...
You would probably list me in the "rich" group, in spite of the fact that I started out homeless in the back of a pickup in NC in winter with a small child and a lazy useless husband. I got rid of the lazy husband and later remarried, and with DH we worked - 2 + 3 jobs apiece - to get what we wanted. We were frugal, we planned and saved and worked hard - and we bought our own property, a 900 sq foot house on 3/4 of an acre. We raised chickens and had a year round garden. Then - we sold it and bought 60 acres with a 100-year-old farmhouse, 1700 miles away. It is ours, and we're not starting a commune - because we know that most people don't have our work ethic, don't have the experience and knowledge we garnered from years of planning, saving, and doing without. We know that owning one's own land means that you shoud have an investment in it, not just of money but of the heart, a desire to achieve, create, and become. Most people who want to join a commune simply don't have that drive - they want to be taken care of, and we are not altruists.
You are very much mistaken in your premise that "rich people" get that way because rich people work together. Rich people set goals, determine what they need to reach those goals, and bust their azzes to get there. Many times they are the mavericks, the ones who stand apart from the herd, not the ones who run with the herd. They know what they want and they are willing to do anything to get it. The question is, how many of the people you attract are independent enough to think and plan and reason - who won't be expected to not only carry the load for others, but lead the lazy and entitled to what they feel they deserve?
Even tho DH and I have been invited several times to join communes, we have cheerfully refused. No thanks. We know that what we have gotten we have earned with our own efforts, and we take personal responsibility for everything - our successes and our failures. In communes, work and blame are not equally shared - and I work for no one else's comfort, and excuse no one from their labors, not even myself.
Nice post...and congradulations...
But I must correct one thing...
I don't blame the rich for my 'shortcomings'....not at all...
Im simply looking at their model of success...and the rich do indeed pool their resorces...investment groups buy ownership into football teams, Casinos, Hotel chains, cruise ships ect ect...
Another correction...not all wealthy people work hard...
Not all wealthy people start off as you did or Steve Jobs or Bill Gates....(they did it the old fashion American apple pie way, not by manipulating other peoples money and markets, but by coming out with a product, and creating a need for that product...Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are not, I repeat not Wall Street in the slightest bit...but Wall Street cronnies have indeed propered greatly from Steve and Bill)
Many wealthy people swindle investors out of money using shady practices...(trading worthless paper)(that's not capitolism)
There's Sam Walton wealthy...and then there's The Britian Royal family type wealthy...
What did their sons do to earn that money?
Or Paris Hilton? What did she do to earn that money?
Now back to Wall street cronny capitolism...
Wall Street is not Main Street...
Wall Street cronnies get rich by speculating on other peoples business...like Poker...same with Brokerage firms...and at the end of year, regardless of how they performed recieve $20 million dollar bonus cause they went to the same Fraternity....
And the person recieving the $20 million dollar bonus couldn't do what I do for a day before throwing in the towel...
They're playing golf by 1:30 pm....
But inspite of that...i don't blame the rich for anything in my current life...
But rather look at their model...
And I do know 30 people of working class status, putting their money together, have a lot more financial clout and buying power, than a single person earning $9.50 an hour...
OK, I admit that DW and I have had similar thoughts to the OP's.
But not on a scale of 15-20 people. And not in a commune or co-op setup.
We were considering perhaps 2 or 3 other adults or couples. All of us would pool some $$$ into getting a larger piece of land, BUT that land would immediately be subdivided as soon as it was closed on. And everyone would have to agree at the outset just which parcel they'd be getting. From there on, that parcel would be THEIR land. It would just be bought at a lower price than if they'd had to buy a place by themselves. There are definitely economies here.
There is a big difference between owning 1/4 of the whole pie, and owning a 1/4 portion of the original acreage that has been separated. This I believe is the only way it would work. Even the Amish have their own land, houses, animals, and barns.
Now you could carry it just a bit farther, and some/all of you agree to cooperate say, on a garden, but it would have to be agreed on just as you would with any other neighbor. You could work together on building a cabin/home, trade labor, barter, etc. But once the land was purchased and subdivided, none of you would "owe" any of the others anything. A man's home is his castle, and he's not interested in any "rules" scribbled up by anybody else.
OK, I admit that DW and I have had similar thoughts to the OP's.
But not on a scale of 15-20 people. And not in a commune or co-op setup.
We were considering perhaps 2 or 3 other adults or couples. All of us would pool some $$$ into getting a larger piece of land, BUT that land would immediately be subdivided as soon as it was closed on. And everyone would have to agree at the outset just which parcel they'd be getting. From there on, that parcel would be THEIR land. It would just be bought at a lower price than if they'd had to buy a place by themselves. There are definitely economies here.
There is a big difference between owning 1/4 of the whole pie, and owning a 1/4 portion of the original acreage that has been separated. This I believe is the only way it would work. Even the Amish have their own land, houses, animals, and barns.
Now you could carry it just a bit farther, and some/all of you agree to cooperate say, on a garden, but it would have to be agreed on just as you would with any other neighbor. You could work together on building a cabin/home, trade labor, barter, etc. But once the land was purchased and subdivided, none of you would "owe" any of the others anything. A man's home is his castle, and he's not interested in any "rules" scribbled up by anybody else.
This is the only way it would work, IMHO.
Good points.
"Neither a lender nor a borrower be". I think that was one of the prime troubles of the hippie communes - it lead to resentment, jealousy and finally the dissolution of the commune. Sure, they passed the bong around, they passed the Boone's Farm around, and they sure as shootin' passed themselves around - but when it came time to turn the fertilizer piles they were conspicuously absent.
Not all wealthy people start off as .... Steve Jobs or Bill Gates....they did it the old fashion American apple pie way, not by manipulating other peoples money and markets...
Actually, Jobs did rely on manipulating other people and sold their works, for higher profit. What did Jobs, himself, do?
And Bill Gates' cash cow, MSDOS, was alleged to be pilfered by a third party, which resulted in a conflict between Digital Research, IBM, and Micro$oft.
When Digital Research founder Gary Kildall examined PC-DOS and found that it duplicated CP/M's programming interface, he wanted to sue IBM, which at the time claimed that PC-DOS was its own product. However, Digital Research's attorney did not believe that the relevant law was clear enough to sue. Nonetheless, Kildall confronted IBM and persuaded them to offer CP/M-86 with the PC in exchange for a release of liability.
Internal to IBM, the rumor mill said that DR "won" the legal argument, and IBM happily offed DR-DOS at $495 versus IBM-DOS at $39.95. Guess which OS won?
Americans don't get rich by "doing stuff" themselves... they get rich manipulating others to do stuff for them, and re-selling it.
"Neither a lender nor a borrower be". I think that was one of the prime troubles of the hippie communes - it lead to resentment, jealousy and finally the dissolution of the commune. Sure, they passed the bong around, they passed the Boone's Farm around, and they sure as shootin' passed themselves around - but when it came time to turn the fertilizer piles they were conspicuously absent.
NOT a good way to co-exist.
I might have my own radio show soon....If so...I'll leave you the number in a personal mail....
And if so...we can discuss this same topic on air....
Ok, this is wild....
More on that later...
Back to the Commune idea and or investment group idea...
I'm thrilled to know that many others have considered it also...
And to me, living in such a community presents a 'wall' of safety should society break down in the future...
Your already living around people you trust and know...and already are independent of societies infulstructure....(or have the mindset to be)...
Mindset is very important...
And I have the mindset, expecially after trotting down this dead end check to check pathway for so long...
To be continued...still at work...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
