Do commune communities make sense again? (cows, barn, horse, community)
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.
Communal living (being a contributing and accepted part of a larger community) is and always will be a key to long-term survival. For an example, consider the folks of "Mayberry, RFD." [And yes, that dates me considerably.]
Living in an organized commune is a different story.
Myself, I'd prefer the former to the latter. But then again, that's only me. As always, YMMV.
T&S, I'd be honored to be on your radio show, but speaking of Mayberry - I have a voice like Barney Fife.
"Andy ... Andy ..."
Have you ever heard of PLEs? Pioneer Little Europes ... another factoid to toss on top of the research pile ... they're based more upon Nationalist political views, but you might get some organizational tips from them.
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...
That last sentence pretty much says it all...
I don't think it is the rich people grouping together to keep the poor people down... but rather the poor peoples' choices of how they work.
Like the interest in the 160 acres simply because it is cheap, there is no comprehension or investigation into why the property is cheap, just the excitement because it is. "Rich people" don't plunge into things just because the price is right; they know to take all things into consideration - everything from access to intended useage - and see if it fits into their plans. They don't allow the property (or any other purchase) to plan for them.
Silvertip is right. We don't worry about pulling calves in a blizzard - because we knew we didn't know enough about Angus or Charolais, and we wanted a cattle breed that was small, intelligent, would forage like goats, and who 'bred easy'. Our breed of cows drop their calves like a bad habit, defend their herd like donkeys(we have packs of coyotes, as well as the occasional mountain lion out here), and live like a family. Even our bull comes up and begs to be petted, snuggling his head against our arms and chests. But it took study to determine which breed was best for us - we didn't simply say, "OH, cows are a good idea! Meat and milk! Let's get cows!" we met breeders and planned our purchases to start our own little herd. Organic sounds wonderful, and we try to keep them as "organic" as possible - but some medications are necessary for the health of the herd. Same with the breed of chicken we chose - not the fast growers for meat alone, or the weak and thin-feathered breeds that produce eggs but freeze to death with their tender constitutions, but the 'winterproof' and heavy birds that can survive weeks of temps below zero, and still produce the big brown eggs and rich meaty yellow skinned flesh that we love.
The best part is that, even though we get a lot of good natured kidding from our neighbors about our "mini-cows" or our "fat" chickens - we didn't have to debate with anyone but ourselves about which breed we should buy, which property we should pick, where and how they and we should and could live. Our lives suit us - no one else.
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.
Most individual farmers are uneducated to the fact that running a farm is a business. A lot of them live off of subsidies and govt handouts but have no problems laughing at the occupy wall-street protesters and labeling them as lazy bums looking for a free ride. Most all of agriculture in this country is subsidized and farmers should be the last ones to laugh at the protests. They bust their asses off all day on the farm for virtually no profit and then you have the vice-presidents of all sorts of stupid companies that produce virtually nothing real owning 6 homes, 8 cars and travelling around the country preaching to us about patriotism and our duty to work hard.
A lot of vertical integration conglomerates depend on stupid people who get into a $250K loan and mortgage their farm on it to build a broiler house that will barely earn them $10K per year all the while getting into a serfdom relationship where the company will tell them what to grow, how many and when. Smart farmers grow stuff they can sell retail, you can make more money off a 5 acre farm selling retail since you are your own boss and all the money goes to you than from a 100 acre farm selling wholesale where you make only 9 cents of every dollar that the product is sold for. There is a lot of ignorance in the farming business and a lot of "I do it because Daddy did it and his Daddy did it too", no innovation and no real business and entrepreneurship thinking.
Most individual farmers are uneducated to the fact that running a farm is a business. A lot of them live off of subsidies and govt handouts but have no problems laughing at the occupy wall-street protesters and labeling them as lazy bums looking for a free ride. Most all of agriculture in this country is subsidized and farmers should be the last ones to laugh at the protests. They bust their asses off all day on the farm for virtually no profit and then you have the vice-presidents of all sorts of stupid companies that produce virtually nothing real owning 6 homes, 8 cars and travelling around the country preaching to us about patriotism and our duty to work hard.
A lot of vertical integration conglomerates depend on stupid people who get into a $250K loan and mortgage their farm on it to build a broiler house that will barely earn them $10K per year all the while getting into a serfdom relationship where the company will tell them what to grow, how many and when. Smart farmers grow stuff they can sell retail, you can make more money off a 5 acre farm selling retail since you are your own boss and all the money goes to you than from a 100 acre farm selling wholesale where you make only 9 cents of every dollar that the product is sold for. There is a lot of ignorance in the farming business and a lot of "I do it because Daddy did it and his Daddy did it too", no innovation and no real business and entrepreneurship thinking.
I am having a hard time beliving you spend a lot of time in the agricultural community as most of the folks I know are VERY aware that farming/ranching is a business.
The subsidies you mention do exist, for specific circumstances and purposes and do not apply to anyone in agriculture. For example, during WWII a subsidy came into being to promote people producing wool for uniforms and blankets. The government established a base price that wool should bring, and when you sold your wool, (1 crop per year) if the price paid by buyers was 15 cents/lb, and the subsidy was 18 cents, you got a check for the difference of 3 cents per pound.
Most of the available subsidies are for specific crops or areas, and the vast majority of the subsidies are paid to corporate farms like Tyson or Monsanto, not to individual farmers/ranchers.
Cattle are a good example as there are not subsidies for raising cattle, and the market is very volitile depending on drought, supply, disease etc. The profit margin on a calf in the fall is very small as you have to buy or produce feed for the cow for the year, a bull, pasture, medications, and if you loose calves to preditors like wolves or coyotes, your profit margin is gone. This is why most folks in agriculture are diversified with several crops of animals or grains or whatever. They have to keep going in lean years as well as good years.
Ranching and farming are very proactive because there are fewer and fewer agricultural people every year, but they produce far more per acre than ever in the past. The demand for what is produced is growing, while fewer and fewer acres are being cultivated each year. More and more land is covered by strip malls and subdivisions each year taking that land out of production so the remaining acres have more pressure to produce than ever before.
We have moved from a subsistance farm situation where you produced enough for your family and maybe a little more for sale, to professional agriculture where each farmer can produce enough to feed around 260 people for a year.
Tractors, animals, satalite systems for planting and application of fertilizer and pesticides, development of disease and insect resistant strains of grain, low impact farming techniques to minimize erosion, application of irrigation water and reading of soil moisture levels to make the most of the water you do apply.
New strains of animals, bred for high production, ease of calving, good birth rates and disease resistance, genetic engineering of animals, creating animals that are very efficent at producing more meat per pound of feed, or producing more milk per pound of feed and computer chips tracking production to feed consumption.
This isn't your great grandfather's farm in the bottomland anymore, it is a very high tech business with most of the new farmers/ranchers having degrees in finance and agricultural scienses to just keep up.
For small holders of less than 160 acres here in my state, yes, growing specialty foods and selling finished products directly to consumers is more cost effective with better prices than selling through the ring to feed lots, but it is a small market. Most people don't spend all day going from farmers market to real food store to find their meals, so we do need larger producers selling their vegetables to Del Monte or Green Giant so the vast majority of consumers can access the product.
Farmers and ranchers are very savvy businessmen these days. True, some do like living just as their fathers did, but times have changed and so have the people in agriculture.
A cow is a cow, a bean is a bean, but the way we produce Steaks or cans of chili have drastically changed in the past 100 years and will only continue to evolve.
Most of the folks I know in agriculture don't qualify for any subsidies, or get very little. They work very hard for what they have, they are very proud and self reliant people. It is a small community as instead of having to get together threshing bees to process your crop, you now have one man on a $250,000.00 threshing machine doing the work of 20 men.
Subsidies evolved to promote growing specific crops such as soybeans, and don't apply to crops such as hay which is vital for beef, milk, mutton and wool production.
The requirements of raising crops is no longer conducive to small villages of people doing the work by hand, there is no profit margin in it unless it is treated as a commercial enterprise.
Subsistance farming is just flat hard work, and not many people want to live like that. This is my primary reasoning why the 60's model commune would not be practicable as the hours are long, the monitary returns on investment are non-existant, and the wear and tear on your body takes it's toll over time.
It is just not something I see a lot of people embracing as it is not an idyllic kind of life. It is hard work, making hard decisions. Lot more fun to watch on tv and dream of your own little idyllic piece of heaven with fat stock and sprouting crops somehow magically transforming to your table with little effort on the part of the "homesteader".
I am having a hard time beliving you spend a lot of time in the agricultural community as most of the folks I know are VERY aware that farming/ranching is a business.
The subsidies you mention do exist, for specific circumstances and purposes and do not apply to anyone in agriculture. For example, during WWII a subsidy came into being to promote people producing wool for uniforms and blankets. The government established a base price that wool should bring, and when you sold your wool, (1 crop per year) if the price paid by buyers was 15 cents/lb, and the subsidy was 18 cents, you got a check for the difference of 3 cents per pound.
Most of the available subsidies are for specific crops or areas, and the vast majority of the subsidies are paid to corporate farms like Tyson or Monsanto, not to individual farmers/ranchers.
Cattle are a good example as there are not subsidies for raising cattle, and the market is very volitile depending on drought, supply, disease etc. The profit margin on a calf in the fall is very small as you have to buy or produce feed for the cow for the year, a bull, pasture, medications, and if you loose calves to preditors like wolves or coyotes, your profit margin is gone. This is why most folks in agriculture are diversified with several crops of animals or grains or whatever. They have to keep going in lean years as well as good years.
Ranching and farming are very proactive because there are fewer and fewer agricultural people every year, but they produce far more per acre than ever in the past. The demand for what is produced is growing, while fewer and fewer acres are being cultivated each year. More and more land is covered by strip malls and subdivisions each year taking that land out of production so the remaining acres have more pressure to produce than ever before.
We have moved from a subsistance farm situation where you produced enough for your family and maybe a little more for sale, to professional agriculture where each farmer can produce enough to feed around 260 people for a year.
Tractors, animals, satalite systems for planting and application of fertilizer and pesticides, development of disease and insect resistant strains of grain, low impact farming techniques to minimize erosion, application of irrigation water and reading of soil moisture levels to make the most of the water you do apply.
New strains of animals, bred for high production, ease of calving, good birth rates and disease resistance, genetic engineering of animals, creating animals that are very efficent at producing more meat per pound of feed, or producing more milk per pound of feed and computer chips tracking production to feed consumption.
This isn't your great grandfather's farm in the bottomland anymore, it is a very high tech business with most of the new farmers/ranchers having degrees in finance and agricultural scienses to just keep up.
For small holders of less than 160 acres here in my state, yes, growing specialty foods and selling finished products directly to consumers is more cost effective with better prices than selling through the ring to feed lots, but it is a small market. Most people don't spend all day going from farmers market to real food store to find their meals, so we do need larger producers selling their vegetables to Del Monte or Green Giant so the vast majority of consumers can access the product.
Farmers and ranchers are very savvy businessmen these days. True, some do like living just as their fathers did, but times have changed and so have the people in agriculture.
A cow is a cow, a bean is a bean, but the way we produce Steaks or cans of chili have drastically changed in the past 100 years and will only continue to evolve.
Most of the folks I know in agriculture don't qualify for any subsidies, or get very little. They work very hard for what they have, they are very proud and self reliant people. It is a small community as instead of having to get together threshing bees to process your crop, you now have one man on a $250,000.00 threshing machine doing the work of 20 men.
Subsidies evolved to promote growing specific crops such as soybeans, and don't apply to crops such as hay which is vital for beef, milk, mutton and wool production.
The requirements of raising crops is no longer conducive to small villages of people doing the work by hand, there is no profit margin in it unless it is treated as a commercial enterprise.
Subsistance farming is just flat hard work, and not many people want to live like that. This is my primary reasoning why the 60's model commune would not be practicable as the hours are long, the monitary returns on investment are non-existant, and the wear and tear on your body takes it's toll over time.
It is just not something I see a lot of people embracing as it is not an idyllic kind of life. It is hard work, making hard decisions. Lot more fun to watch on tv and dream of your own little idyllic piece of heaven with fat stock and sprouting crops somehow magically transforming to your table with little effort on the part of the "homesteader".
There are a lot of farms going out of business, most often the large acreages (especially during the real-estate boom where it was much more profitable to break the farm apart and sell it in overpriced pieces). Many farmers drown in debt and loans to purchase and maintain heavy machinery, a lot of them are economic slaves to banks and large companies like John Deere. Small farms make much more sense. The excuse that a lot of people do not have time to go to farmer's markets is just that - excuse. I know of a lot of small farmers in the area that sell out of all of their produce and they do it quickly. People will always choose healthy and local if it was offered to them at a competitive price. I never understood why you would want to kill yourself and take the risk of hundreds or thousands of acres to sell to someone who will reap all the profits. For every dollar that gets spent on groceries, how much does the wholesale farmer make as opposed to the grocery store as opposed to the packager or the brand (like green giant)? I would bet that the farmer gets the least amount.
A lot of large acreage farmers are locked into the old ways of planting unicultures. That equates putting all your eggs in one basket. Granted, things are changing but only after the large acreage farmers are starting to feel the pressure coming from the small acreage farmers. They are also seeing that a farm can be a successful 9-5 business, contrary to popular belief. Large acreage farms are also incurring huge costs of chemicals and equipment to dispense them just to guarantee a crop.
A lot of old-school, large acreage farmers locked in loans and perpetual debt are complaining about the business but it may be that they enjoyed a lot of subsidies (and still do) and simply there was no incentive for them to do anything but what they did last year. I am not making this up, statistics show you that Americans are moving out of the rural areas and moving into cities. Nobody wants to be a farmer (again statistics bear this out). People have been convinced to equate a farm with a stenchy, back-breaking, no profit job. Maybe the way it is done regularly but it can be done to produce a handsome profit too.
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.
Get off your high horse.
You have clearly never worked in corporate America or in the financial industry.
The way to succeed is not hard work, it is going to get an easy 4-yr business or management degree where you spend all the time partying, making friends, learning how to produce charts that make you look good (or make someone else look bad). You get an entry level job in a financial institution like a bank or a money manager, do a half-decent job but nothing spectacular necessary. Most important thing is to shmooze with the right people, suck up to the right higher-up and spend tons of time being funny, socializing and networking. I have seen it over and over again, competence does not get you much, in fact if you care too much about how well things are done, people below you will hate you (since you are too anal) and people above you will fear you and never let you come up since you will be doing all the stuff they should but don't. The rich hang out with the rich and prepare the ground for the next job, next opportunity to magnify the wealth. The times of working your way up from the mail room are gone, for good.
Finally, I speak from personal experience. Been there, done that, started in a basic position, worked my way up three levels with raises and all, became a manager, made the 6-figure salary etc. Was competent, hard working, cared. Then I realized how stuff works and just quit. I am not lazy by any means but when something isn't right, it isn't right. I saw a few people walk into SVP positions, have no clue what they are doing, get let go or leave on their own accord after 2-3 years (two-three years of doing nothing but collecting the paycheck and shmoozing on yachts and in high-power bars/restaurants) with a huge bank account and on to a new gig that is more of the same....
So, please, do not spin that bull**** of backbreaking work and frugality will get you wealth. No, it will keep you slightly (just SLIGHTLY) ahead of the rest of the poor, possibly in the middle to high-middle class. It will never make you wealthy. More likely you will spend your entire life on creating a nest-egg that someone else (an SVP in some faraway corporation) blows on one graduation gift for his prised child.
Seems to me when common class working people pool their resorces, they're able to aquire a lot more...just as the rich do...
Those with money and resorces routinely form investment groups and firms...same concept...
One person could never afford a ranch or farm on 30 acres of land...but 30 people all contributing 1,2 thousand dollars could...or even buy a lodge...
The rich get richer cause they stick together...the poor get poorer, cause they poor aren't witty enough to see the advantage of pooling resorces...
If anyone is interested in such an endevour, please let me know...
It's either that or continue to work at minimum wage, poor credit, and never have nothing....
To answer your question: communes made sense when the culture was such. Individuality has been touted by the marketing and corporate types for too long. People now believe that paying for services is sufficient for them to be on their own and require no help or offer none. The model is to offer every possible service for money and you would need not know anything or how it works but someone will be available to pay to do the job. Presumably you will need no family or friends...
There are too many crazy people out there to even attempt a commune. Even of you had your contracts and rules in the community, people would likely be able to sue you and win. Heck, I know someone who moved into an apartment complex that did not allow pets, live in it for a few months, get a dog and sue the complex when they were told to get rid of the animal. The person won on some bull**** emotional grounds and now has a dog living with her in the complex against all the rules.
Best thing to do is move to a small town and let this spontaneously develop. The people in a small town are likely to already be more self-sufficient anyways. They are also likely used to looking after each other (there will always be feuds and mutual dislike between individuals) and depend on each other for services and things. However, you may also end up in a small town where one family owns most of everything. Then it is a bad situation...
Do your research but I think posting an add to start a group is inviting all the crazies..
Another option is to move to Europe or South America. Villages as you are discussing here are routine and normal there.
That last sentence pretty much says it all...
I don't think it is the rich people grouping together to keep the poor people down... but rather the poor peoples' choices of how they work.
Like the interest in the 160 acres simply because it is cheap, there is no comprehension or investigation into why the property is cheap, just the excitement because it is. "Rich people" don't plunge into things just because the price is right; they know to take all things into consideration - everything from access to intended useage - and see if it fits into their plans. They don't allow the property (or any other purchase) to plan for them.
Silvertip is right. We don't worry about pulling calves in a blizzard - because we knew we didn't know enough about Angus or Charolais, and we wanted a cattle breed that was small, intelligent, would forage like goats, and who 'bred easy'. Our breed of cows drop their calves like a bad habit, defend their herd like donkeys(we have packs of coyotes, as well as the occasional mountain lion out here), and live like a family. Even our bull comes up and begs to be petted, snuggling his head against our arms and chests. But it took study to determine which breed was best for us - we didn't simply say, "OH, cows are a good idea! Meat and milk! Let's get cows!" we met breeders and planned our purchases to start our own little herd. Organic sounds wonderful, and we try to keep them as "organic" as possible - but some medications are necessary for the health of the herd. Same with the breed of chicken we chose - not the fast growers for meat alone, or the weak and thin-feathered breeds that produce eggs but freeze to death with their tender constitutions, but the 'winterproof' and heavy birds that can survive weeks of temps below zero, and still produce the big brown eggs and rich meaty yellow skinned flesh that we love.
The best part is that, even though we get a lot of good natured kidding from our neighbors about our "mini-cows" or our "fat" chickens - we didn't have to debate with anyone but ourselves about which breed we should buy, which property we should pick, where and how they and we should and could live. Our lives suit us - no one else.
I never indicated that the rich were consciously trying to keep me or other working people down...
You have me mixed up with angry protesters or something...
I simply think the lifestyle I, and many others live right now, kind of rings hollow...
We're like cows on a dairy farm...corralled here and there, and milked of our resorces...
And by the time many of us aquire what we want, we're unable to enjoy it do to health issues or age...
It's like we've traded the richness of life, community, for meager wages that consume all our time and energy....
But yet I look at the animals, and they don't derive their pleasure from 'stuff' but rather from existing in a peaceful enviornment...and that's all I desire...
An enviornment where the aim isn't to get employed and produce an income that gets all but eaten up after just paying basic bills...
I would like a place where everything is paid for so people can just relax...
A place where the banks and sorounding economy has no say in what occurs...(freedom from the banks and loans and repos and debt)...
Even if it were just land, where people could bring their RV's and not have to worry about paying this or paying that...but could just park anywhere and be happy and relax....
I'm not talking about drugged out hippies...I'm talken about people who are just burned out on draining all their energy on the mundaneness of singularity.
Like right now...I gotta cut this short cause...yep...my job beckins...to be continued...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
To answer your question: communes made sense when the culture was such. Individuality has been touted by the marketing and corporate types for too long. People now believe that paying for services is sufficient for them to be on their own and require no help or offer none. The model is to offer every possible service for money and you would need not know anything or how it works but someone will be available to pay to do the job. Presumably you will need no family or friends...
There are too many crazy people out there to even attempt a commune. Even of you had your contracts and rules in the community, people would likely be able to sue you and win. Heck, I know someone who moved into an apartment complex that did not allow pets, live in it for a few months, get a dog and sue the complex when they were told to get rid of the animal. The person won on some bull**** emotional grounds and now has a dog living with her in the complex against all the rules.
Best thing to do is move to a small town and let this spontaneously develop. The people in a small town are likely to already be more self-sufficient anyways. They are also likely used to looking after each other (there will always be feuds and mutual dislike between individuals) and depend on each other for services and things. However, you may also end up in a small town where one family owns most of everything. Then it is a bad situation...
Do your research but I think posting an add to start a group is inviting all the crazies..
Another option is to move to Europe or South America. Villages as you are discussing here are routine and normal there.
That's why I wouldn't want a large one...rather a small one...10-40 people...a high class commune or place of dwelling...
Even if it meant purchasing a lodge...
Don't they already have that...and isn't it called a 'time share?'...
Anyways...like I told other poster...me job beckons...
When I get some time later...I'll better explain what it is I invision...
Commune is just an umbrella term...but there's so many patterns underneath that term...
Any government, when you think about it, is a gigantic commune...
America, when you think about it, is a gigantic commune...
A gigantic community with rules and regulations you have to abhere to...
to be continued...
..Back to work grunt!
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.
