11 ms·

At 37:00 she explicitly states the co-op has the authority through consensus to legally force someone off the commune (no mention of what happens to their share

by rib3ye 5y ago

At 37:00 she explicitly states the co-op has the authority through consensus to legally force someone off the commune (no mention of what happens to their shares, but I assume forfeiture). One has to wonder what the rest of the US would look like if we could kick someone out of their neighborhood and force them to sell or give up their home simply because we didn’t like them. The possibility for authoritarian attitudes seems high.

UncleMeat 5y ago
I mean, that is what prisons are.
- rib3ye 5y ago
  I can see where you are going with it but the justice system is like a delegated validator with a mandate and specifications on how to apply “fairness”. I guess I am arguing they specialized in kicking people out of the community with the mandate to rehabilitate so the rejoin the community. In no way am I making the argument that that’s what actually happens.
exporectomy 5y ago
If the system itself is the unit of survival, then individual members' rights aren't so important. That's the communism way. They certainly need to be selective in allowing membership or it'll degrade into a bunch of freeloaders.
danjac 5y ago
I mean it's not like the US has a history of segregation or anything...
giantg2 5y ago
I mean, the courts can do all sorts of things. I would say this sort of thing can happen indirectly in the civil side where a jury finds you less likeable than the other person and levies a large judgement against you. At the least you may be stuck with a large legal bill that could force you to downsize. There are also neighbors who may harass you or make life unbearable.
eezing 5y ago
“Consensus” is the keyword there. Is this not how the private sector operates? An Ecovillage is not my bag, but I get what they’re trying to do.
- akomtu 5y ago
  Consensus here means that a few vocal populists will decide the outcome of consensus. For example: "We need to boot that communist out of our community! Joe, do you support communists? No? Great! Jim, your turn. John, what did you say? You're undecided? Fine. We've got enough votes anyway and on our next meeting we'll need to discuss whether you belong to our friendly community."
skinnymuch 5y ago
America does not have a stellar history nor even present day. Red lining still happens. The previous president’s son in law and family are considered to be slum lords in their operations. This is not a political statement, more so about a rich and powerful person able to get away with things. There’s other issues like what a Marketplace episode[1] went over recently where the system is effectively built to screw over some segments of the population into losing their land and home. We still have not done any amending of the horrible tragedies that have gained more mainstream awareness in places like Tulsa Oklahoma, Wilmington North Carolina, and likely other places. We just continue to let the status quo remain today. Imminent domain coincidentally never seems to affect or bother the very well off. > US would look like if we could kick someone out of their neighborhood and force them to sell or give up their home simply because we didn’t like them The US and world at large are so far from not being close to what you describe those. Sure the exact wording you used may not happen [much] any more. That doesn’t change the many similar not much better situations happening. Nor are past examples of authoritarian abuse and the actions you stated rectified. The status quo normally remains. [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/04/02/983897990/how-jacob-louds-land-was-lost https://www.npr.org/2021/04/02/983897990/how-jacob-louds-lan...
- patrickdavey 5y ago
  I listened to that show when it came out. Utterly horrifying and so blatantly corrupt. Only advertising locally and having to pay in cash (so the poor cannot afford to keep their own land). Awful. "In the last hundred years, heirs' property laws have contributed to the loss of millions of acres of Black-owed land."
  - bsanr2 5y ago
    There is quite a lot of appalling real estate-related NPR investigative programming to find, if one is so inclined. Reveal in particular is a mainstay of, "Inspiring justifiable Sunday afternoon vexation over the state of Americam society." https://revealnews.org/podcast/losing-ground/ https://revealnews.org/podcast/losing-ground/
ardit33 5y ago
All NYC coop apartment building have a similar provision. Troublesome owners can get kicked out. In practice it rarely happens, and you are forced to sell your shares and move out. Basically you still cash out your apartment. No one can forfeit your place/apt as that would be illegal.
- rib3ye 5y ago
  Makes sense but what do the bylaws say about someone who refuses to sell?
  - nradov 5y ago
    At that point the co-op board would have to file a lawsuit and ask a judge to order the sale. That can be a slow, expensive process.
netcan 5y ago
> The possibility for authoritarian attitudes seems high. Possibly, but I don't think you can point to an "aha!" clause and come to a conclusion. These things aren't deterministic. A village like this isn't strictly defined by its rules. The people there, and the culture they develop are they biggest factor. A religious oriented community will not be like a socialist one, or like one formed by former college friends. Rules can be unimportant, but communities aren't legible like that. A "please leave" clause can be used totally different depending on the people involved. In any case, consensus-based systems tend to get mocked and reduced quite a lot. The thing to understand about these ways of making decisions is that it's premised on the existence of a community of people and a culture of making decisions this way. It doesn't necessarily work at an AGM or whatnot, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work anywhere.
southerntofu 5y ago
> the co-op has the authority through consensus to legally force someone off the commune So first it's important to point out that in self-organized communities a ban is the most drastic measure that can be taken against someone. It's not exactly the option thrown in the air when there's any kind of neighborhood conflict. Then, it's a feature not a bug. It requires consensus: why on earth would you be allowed to live in a place where nobody wants to live with you? Also worth considering, what's the alternative? Calling the cops? Besides any question of autonomy in regards to the State, how would that help? What would cops do that the commune can't? Would it be more humane to incarcerate the undesired person? To assassinate them?
- JPKab 5y ago
  "Why on earth would you be allowed to live in a place where nobody wants to live with you?" I have no doubt this exact phrase was uttered hundreds of times in the 1950s by redlining commissions justifying the exclusion of minorities from subdivisions.
  - netcan 5y ago
    There are actual, real discrimination implications to self governing communities. Forced eviction isn't likely to be the problem, but selective admission is. That said, reactions here are pretty hyperbolic... jumping to a very extreme conclusion that therefore communal villages are bad. Every selective admissions process has the potential (probably history) for bigotry. University/school admission, mortgage approval, job hiring. Does that mean selective hiring needs to end? The same laws apply to everyone, imperfect as they are. illegal discrimination is still illegal. If eco villages start representing a major part of society, and >1% of people live in them, then I am sure that we'll have this discussion. I don't think this is iminent.
    - lowkey_ 5y ago
      > Every selective admissions process has the potential (probably history) for bigotry. University/school admission, mortgage approval, job hiring. Does that mean selective hiring needs to end? There's a very big difference between being rejected from a university, and being expelled from your home because your neighbors dislike you. I don't see how you make the comparison — the problem we're pointing out is being evicted, not selective admission as you're reframing it to be.
weego 5y ago
Isn't that basically what HOAs do but mask it under a chain of trivial sounding issues?
FpUser 5y ago
>"At 37:00 she explicitly states the co-op has the authority through consensus to legally force someone off the commune" Does not regular HOA (the US is choke full of those) fine and or eventually force you out if your blinds are wrong shade of green? I am not sure about the exact details as when I was looking for a house it is my first criteria - "no fucking HOA".
- rib3ye 5y ago
  I don’t know much about the topic, can they force you to sell/pay fines? What are the penalties and who enforces them?
  - mikem170 5y ago
    Homeowners associations in the U.S. can put liens on properties for failing to pay dues or fines, foreclose on properties, and evict tenants or owners [0]. Generally a lawsuit would be involved. Details vary by state. [0] https://homeguides.sfgate.com/can-condo-association-evict-owner-50627.html https://homeguides.sfgate.com/can-condo-association-evict-ow...
cplusplusfellow 5y ago
I would imagine the group-think enforcement in this community rivals most totalitarian regimes.
simonebrunozzi 5y ago
> (no mention of what happens to their shares, but I assume forfeiture). To be fair, one should be able to "sell" his/her shares at market value. Also related to this particular "expulsion", the practice was in use since ancient Greek times, and called "ostracism" [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
- trevyn 5y ago
  This sounds so civilized compared to today. You’re given ten days to leave, can come back after ten years, and there is no loss of property. Also, “it can take place at most once a year, and only for one person. In this it resembles the Greek pharmakos or scapegoat…” Something something René Girard.
tdeck 5y ago
This doesn't seem more authoritarian than our current system where if the right two or three people (cop, DA, judge) don't like you they have the power to put you in prison.
teekert 5y ago
In the Netherlands our driving judge (rijdende rechter, a tv program) regularly kicks people out of their property when they are real anti-social bullies that mess up their neighbors or neighborhood.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  > real anti-social bullies that mess up their neighbors or neighborhood. That can mean "marginalized for some non-criminal reason". Sounds disgusting.
  - vkou 5y ago
    I would like to point out that a legal justice system that kills and imprisons people based on a decision of a judge, and optionally, twelve strangers, may be a 'disgusting' dystopia, or necessary for society to operate. What separates the two are the social norms they operate under. I'd also like to remind everyone that in many shared living spaces, landlords have the power to kick anti-social people out - and the fewer tenant protections there are, the less oversight they are subject to.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      Sure. But at least with criminal justice, there is an effort to make it predictable and consistent so you know when you're breaking the law or not - ideally of course. On the other hand, arbitrary rules that are made up on the fly to get rid of marginalized people is a hallmark of repressive governments as well as common bullying. It entrenches the power of the politically powerful.
  - teekert 5y ago
    Actually I'm really happy to know that if my neighbors really start to mess with my night rest or air quality, they can be punished via the justice system. We live pretty close together here.
    - exporectomy 5y ago
dabbledash 5y ago
>> The possibility for authoritarian attitudes seems high. I assume this is part of the appeal. The group over individual rights.
- themacguffinman 5y ago
  It's all about the greater good! The greater good
Kiro 5y ago
This is how all housing (flats) works in Sweden. You don't actually buy the apartment but a share in the housing cooperative and a right to use that specific flat. If you get kicked out your share will be forcibly sold.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tibbon 5y ago
Those darn authoritarians using consensus.
wolverine876 5y ago
> One has to wonder what the rest of the US would look like if we could kick someone out of their neighborhood and force them to sell or give up their home simply because we didn’t like them. The possibility for authoritarian attitudes seems high. It happens all the time. Homeless people, for example, are regularly kicked out of neighborhoods, etc., for no reason but being unliked (and I've heard the excuses, such as the universal one about 'human feces' - and I've been to clean encampments that were dismantled the next day using those excuses. If you're in a city, I suggest seeing for yourself). eople who don't fit, for example for economic or racial reasons, are harassed, and sometimes with little support from authorities who are a creation of the majority. The UK and US both have had, not long ago, practices and policies of administratively, extra-judicially, harassing immigrants, legitimate and undocumented (possibly still true in the UK, and in the US to some extent). It's nothing unique to cooperatives. Given the self-selected nature of cooperative members, I would guess it would happen less.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Bruce's Beach is another example that's easy to reach for. For anyone to assume that this hasn't happened is to admit to not studying history.
vpilcx 5y ago
How does it work to be able to legally kick someone off their property like this? Because I've been working on a hypothetical idea for a while now that's kind of weird version of a commune. A facility that is autonomous and self-sustaining in which the facility and its infrastructure is owned and run by one person, but the community that it houses is governs itself. The person who runs the facility has the authority (only in very, very extreme cases) to evict people but mainly, the ideal is that the community would police and govern itself, evicting problematic members of their community. I just have no idea what the legal feasibility evicting someone is in this hypothetical situation.

by rib3ye 5y ago

UncleMeat 5y ago

I mean, that is what prisons are.

rib3ye 5y ago
I can see where you are going with it but the justice system is like a delegated validator with a mandate and specifications on how to apply “fairness”. I guess I am arguing they specialized in kicking people out of the community with the mandate to rehabilitate so the rejoin the community. In no way am I making the argument that that’s what actually happens.

exporectomy 5y ago

If the system itself is the unit of survival, then individual members' rights aren't so important. That's the communism way. They certainly need to be selective in allowing membership or it'll degrade into a bunch of freeloaders.

danjac 5y ago

I mean it's not like the US has a history of segregation or anything...

giantg2 5y ago

I mean, the courts can do all sorts of things. I would say this sort of thing can happen indirectly in the civil side where a jury finds you less likeable than the other person and levies a large judgement against you. At the least you may be stuck with a large legal bill that could force you to downsize. There are also neighbors who may harass you or make life unbearable.

eezing 5y ago

“Consensus” is the keyword there. Is this not how the private sector operates? An Ecovillage is not my bag, but I get what they’re trying to do.

akomtu 5y ago
Consensus here means that a few vocal populists will decide the outcome of consensus. For example: "We need to boot that communist out of our community! Joe, do you support communists? No? Great! Jim, your turn. John, what did you say? You're undecided? Fine. We've got enough votes anyway and on our next meeting we'll need to discuss whether you belong to our friendly community."

skinnymuch 5y ago

America does not have a stellar history nor even present day. Red lining still happens. The previous president’s son in law and family are considered to be slum lords in their operations. This is not a political statement, more so about a rich and powerful person able to get away with things. There’s other issues like what a Marketplace episode[1] went over recently where the system is effectively built to screw over some segments of the population into losing their land and home. We still have not done any amending of the horrible tragedies that have gained more mainstream awareness in places like Tulsa Oklahoma, Wilmington North Carolina, and likely other places. We just continue to let the status quo remain today. Imminent domain coincidentally never seems to affect or bother the very well off. > US would look like if we could kick someone out of their neighborhood and force them to sell or give up their home simply because we didn’t like them The US and world at large are so far from not being close to what you describe those. Sure the exact wording you used may not happen [much] any more. That doesn’t change the many similar not much better situations happening. Nor are past examples of authoritarian abuse and the actions you stated rectified. The status quo normally remains. [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/04/02/983897990/how-jacob-louds-land-was-lost https://www.npr.org/2021/04/02/983897990/how-jacob-louds-lan...

patrickdavey 5y ago
I listened to that show when it came out. Utterly horrifying and so blatantly corrupt. Only advertising locally and having to pay in cash (so the poor cannot afford to keep their own land). Awful. "In the last hundred years, heirs' property laws have contributed to the loss of millions of acres of Black-owed land."
- bsanr2 5y ago
  There is quite a lot of appalling real estate-related NPR investigative programming to find, if one is so inclined. Reveal in particular is a mainstay of, "Inspiring justifiable Sunday afternoon vexation over the state of Americam society." https://revealnews.org/podcast/losing-ground/ https://revealnews.org/podcast/losing-ground/

ardit33 5y ago

All NYC coop apartment building have a similar provision. Troublesome owners can get kicked out. In practice it rarely happens, and you are forced to sell your shares and move out. Basically you still cash out your apartment. No one can forfeit your place/apt as that would be illegal.

rib3ye 5y ago
Makes sense but what do the bylaws say about someone who refuses to sell?
- nradov 5y ago
  At that point the co-op board would have to file a lawsuit and ask a judge to order the sale. That can be a slow, expensive process.

netcan 5y ago

> The possibility for authoritarian attitudes seems high. Possibly, but I don't think you can point to an "aha!" clause and come to a conclusion. These things aren't deterministic. A village like this isn't strictly defined by its rules. The people there, and the culture they develop are they biggest factor. A religious oriented community will not be like a socialist one, or like one formed by former college friends. Rules can be unimportant, but communities aren't legible like that. A "please leave" clause can be used totally different depending on the people involved. In any case, consensus-based systems tend to get mocked and reduced quite a lot. The thing to understand about these ways of making decisions is that it's premised on the existence of a community of people and a culture of making decisions this way. It doesn't necessarily work at an AGM or whatnot, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work anywhere.

southerntofu 5y ago

> the co-op has the authority through consensus to legally force someone off the commune So first it's important to point out that in self-organized communities a ban is the most drastic measure that can be taken against someone. It's not exactly the option thrown in the air when there's any kind of neighborhood conflict. Then, it's a feature not a bug. It requires consensus: why on earth would you be allowed to live in a place where nobody wants to live with you? Also worth considering, what's the alternative? Calling the cops? Besides any question of autonomy in regards to the State, how would that help? What would cops do that the commune can't? Would it be more humane to incarcerate the undesired person? To assassinate them?

JPKab 5y ago
"Why on earth would you be allowed to live in a place where nobody wants to live with you?" I have no doubt this exact phrase was uttered hundreds of times in the 1950s by redlining commissions justifying the exclusion of minorities from subdivisions.
- netcan 5y ago
  There are actual, real discrimination implications to self governing communities. Forced eviction isn't likely to be the problem, but selective admission is. That said, reactions here are pretty hyperbolic... jumping to a very extreme conclusion that therefore communal villages are bad. Every selective admissions process has the potential (probably history) for bigotry. University/school admission, mortgage approval, job hiring. Does that mean selective hiring needs to end? The same laws apply to everyone, imperfect as they are. illegal discrimination is still illegal. If eco villages start representing a major part of society, and >1% of people live in them, then I am sure that we'll have this discussion. I don't think this is iminent.
  - lowkey_ 5y ago
    > Every selective admissions process has the potential (probably history) for bigotry. University/school admission, mortgage approval, job hiring. Does that mean selective hiring needs to end? There's a very big difference between being rejected from a university, and being expelled from your home because your neighbors dislike you. I don't see how you make the comparison — the problem we're pointing out is being evicted, not selective admission as you're reframing it to be.

weego 5y ago

Isn't that basically what HOAs do but mask it under a chain of trivial sounding issues?

FpUser 5y ago

>"At 37:00 she explicitly states the co-op has the authority through consensus to legally force someone off the commune" Does not regular HOA (the US is choke full of those) fine and or eventually force you out if your blinds are wrong shade of green? I am not sure about the exact details as when I was looking for a house it is my first criteria - "no fucking HOA".

rib3ye 5y ago
I don’t know much about the topic, can they force you to sell/pay fines? What are the penalties and who enforces them?
- mikem170 5y ago
  Homeowners associations in the U.S. can put liens on properties for failing to pay dues or fines, foreclose on properties, and evict tenants or owners [0]. Generally a lawsuit would be involved. Details vary by state. [0] https://homeguides.sfgate.com/can-condo-association-evict-owner-50627.html https://homeguides.sfgate.com/can-condo-association-evict-ow...

cplusplusfellow 5y ago

I would imagine the group-think enforcement in this community rivals most totalitarian regimes.

simonebrunozzi 5y ago

> (no mention of what happens to their shares, but I assume forfeiture). To be fair, one should be able to "sell" his/her shares at market value. Also related to this particular "expulsion", the practice was in use since ancient Greek times, and called "ostracism" [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

trevyn 5y ago
This sounds so civilized compared to today. You’re given ten days to leave, can come back after ten years, and there is no loss of property. Also, “it can take place at most once a year, and only for one person. In this it resembles the Greek pharmakos or scapegoat…” Something something René Girard.

tdeck 5y ago

This doesn't seem more authoritarian than our current system where if the right two or three people (cop, DA, judge) don't like you they have the power to put you in prison.

teekert 5y ago

In the Netherlands our driving judge (rijdende rechter, a tv program) regularly kicks people out of their property when they are real anti-social bullies that mess up their neighbors or neighborhood.

exporectomy 5y ago
> real anti-social bullies that mess up their neighbors or neighborhood. That can mean "marginalized for some non-criminal reason". Sounds disgusting.
- vkou 5y ago
  I would like to point out that a legal justice system that kills and imprisons people based on a decision of a judge, and optionally, twelve strangers, may be a 'disgusting' dystopia, or necessary for society to operate. What separates the two are the social norms they operate under. I'd also like to remind everyone that in many shared living spaces, landlords have the power to kick anti-social people out - and the fewer tenant protections there are, the less oversight they are subject to.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    Sure. But at least with criminal justice, there is an effort to make it predictable and consistent so you know when you're breaking the law or not - ideally of course. On the other hand, arbitrary rules that are made up on the fly to get rid of marginalized people is a hallmark of repressive governments as well as common bullying. It entrenches the power of the politically powerful.
- teekert 5y ago
  Actually I'm really happy to know that if my neighbors really start to mess with my night rest or air quality, they can be punished via the justice system. We live pretty close together here.
  - exporectomy 5y ago

dabbledash 5y ago

>> The possibility for authoritarian attitudes seems high. I assume this is part of the appeal. The group over individual rights.

themacguffinman 5y ago
It's all about the greater good! The greater good

Kiro 5y ago

This is how all housing (flats) works in Sweden. You don't actually buy the apartment but a share in the housing cooperative and a right to use that specific flat. If you get kicked out your share will be forcibly sold.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tibbon 5y ago

Those darn authoritarians using consensus.

wolverine876 5y ago

> One has to wonder what the rest of the US would look like if we could kick someone out of their neighborhood and force them to sell or give up their home simply because we didn’t like them. The possibility for authoritarian attitudes seems high. It happens all the time. Homeless people, for example, are regularly kicked out of neighborhoods, etc., for no reason but being unliked (and I've heard the excuses, such as the universal one about 'human feces' - and I've been to clean encampments that were dismantled the next day using those excuses. If you're in a city, I suggest seeing for yourself). eople who don't fit, for example for economic or racial reasons, are harassed, and sometimes with little support from authorities who are a creation of the majority. The UK and US both have had, not long ago, practices and policies of administratively, extra-judicially, harassing immigrants, legitimate and undocumented (possibly still true in the UK, and in the US to some extent). It's nothing unique to cooperatives. Given the self-selected nature of cooperative members, I would guess it would happen less.

kelseyfrog 5y ago
Bruce's Beach is another example that's easy to reach for. For anyone to assume that this hasn't happened is to admit to not studying history.

vpilcx 5y ago

How does it work to be able to legally kick someone off their property like this? Because I've been working on a hypothetical idea for a while now that's kind of weird version of a commune. A facility that is autonomous and self-sustaining in which the facility and its infrastructure is owned and run by one person, but the community that it houses is governs itself. The person who runs the facility has the authority (only in very, very extreme cases) to evict people but mainly, the ideal is that the community would police and govern itself, evicting problematic members of their community. I just have no idea what the legal feasibility evicting someone is in this hypothetical situation.