The problem with these places being sustainable is the basic natures of human beings. Some always want to be boss, competent or not. Some refuse to do manual labor. Some don't want to do repetitive tasks. Some don't have many/any of the necessary skills, and have no intention of learning any. Some won't work in the cold. Some won't work in the heat. Some always have something else to do.
That's called the Mommy System. Costs are always ongoing, they don't stop with setup.
And how would you define 'zero responsibility' here? You don't have to contribute anything but your mere presence?
What's the point of even being there?
If you have no responsibilities,
Wealthy people nearly always want the control.
And how much would you have to contribute to be waited on hand and foot, like a slug or Jabba the Hut?
Whenever I catch myself starting a sentence with "I can't imagine," I stop and ask myself if, perhaps, I simply lack imagination in this case.
I see a lot of negtalk here, and many unfounded claims.
I have no problem with that. She starts out subjective: "I can think of..." and "I can't imagine..." then turns judgemental: "It works much better..." I would have been much happier with "I think it works much better for me..."
Why does someone come into a thread about "intentional community" and start right off knocking it?
Those who are interested enough in community to learn about it pick up the vocabulary and the tools needed. Those who don't just claim it doesn't work. Encouraging the latter won't attract the former.
I'm called out for being critical.
I don't think I'd want to get involved with a commune-type of community.
I like the village/small farms model better, where everyone owns their own place, and works together IF THEY CHOOSE TO.
As long as you have a wise and good person in charge, everything works well, but if you get someone not so wise or good, it could be a miserable existence.
If I understand you properly, Paul, you seem to feel it is more important to "get things done" (whatever that means), than to have universal buy-in, and that the two are mutually exclusive. Please correct me if this summary is inaccurate.
In your assessment, "In nearly all cases, consensus [is] tied to non productivity."
In your assessment, "In nearly all cases, consensus [is] tied to non productivity." I didn't see in that assessment how happy the people were, how satisfied they were with decisions, how permanent and stable the population was, etc.
On the other hand, I agree that a well-run dictatorship is more likely to "get things done," but I'm not convinced those under the dictator are very happy, or satisfied with decisions made without their consent, or likely to stick around for the long run (if they have a choice).
If you are working with a group of people, you ignore the "soft," invisible things that get done via consensus -- such as buy-in, satisfaction, and stability -- at your peril. If you don't hold a whip or a paycheck over them, good luck "getting things done" over the long haul.
(Since this is an intentional community thread, I'm making the assumption that some group of people are involved. The "go it alone" versus "go with a group" discussion is an entirely different matter.)
It's such a huge difference to say, "It doesn't work," than to say, "It doesn't work for me."
You (and others) seem to think that successful consensus somehow requires that all who take part are some kind of super-persons. But I think they only need agree to learn and use certain skills, such as compassionate communication and empathy.
It seems to me that you are talking about another form of pseudo-consensus, often called "consensus everything."
We use consensus as a delegation and ratification mechanism. We don't hold big meetings to figure out what to do about a hangnail.
Above all else, community (intentional or conventional) is about trust building.
One can certainly find good and bad examples of just about any governance system on earth! But that doesn't mean that (for example) all democracies are good and all monarchies are bad.