3 ms·

"what's the alternative?" Private property. With a few municipal bylaws. All under the jurisdiction of an actual legal framework, with a Constitutional found

"what's the alternative?" Private property. With a few municipal bylaws. All under the jurisdiction of an actual legal framework, with a Constitutional foundation. ... As the commented noted - and what is apparent in the video, these places are a bit more culty than they are secularly civic. 'Free thinkers', bent on re-thinking civilization, can be surprisingly authoritarian. Especially absent the many constraints of regular society, and trying to pursue some kind of 'ideal', then a kind of authoritarianism takes over - sometimes 'top down' i.e. by the 'founder' (i.e. Walt Disney), or the inner circle, or more competitively among the rank and file If there isn't an overt hierarchy - it will form on some other subtle basis. If you thought that 'nosy neighbours' were an issue in small towns, try one of these places. When the 'living space' gets conflated with so many other cultural issues, then existential debate ensues perennially. It may not exist as 'overt, direct conflict' but rather in the minds of the adherents. I think it's why so few of these places actually exist - we really do value our privacy and the freedom to work and do as we please. I certainly am glad that some of them exist, but I think they are better framed as legal municipalities, with some specific bylaws that are more objectively clear, where they otherwise stay out of people's lives. I think a lot of people would go for that.

wolverine876 5y ago
> 'Free thinkers', bent on re-thinking civilization, can be surprisingly authoritarian. Authoritarians usually use the existing legal system to oppress 'free thinkers'. It's the minority, the fringe, that get oppressed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jollybean 5y ago
  Authoritarians usually come from the fringe and change the system of power, i.e. Castro, Qaddafi, Stalin, Mao etc..
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Stalin, Mao, and I think Castro (I don't know about Qaddafi) were totalitarians, single parties that exercised total control. Authoritarians are people like Putin, an undemocratic dominant power among some competing power centers (though maybe Russian politics has shifted into totalitarian). Maybe we can say that authoritarians use the system to control things; totalitarians build a system of only themselves (or their party, such as the Soviet and Chinese Communists).
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    We live in very authoritarian societies. The names you quotes are just opposite sides of the same political culture/quadrant. It's important to point out that popular revolts are often anti-authoritarian, fighting for freedom and equality for all. Such is the story of the Paris Commune, the Makhnovtchina, the Spanish revolution, the Chiapas zapatistas uprising... Most of these revolts for change have been crushed precisely because new people have been placed in power, and that's why most communes seek to explicitly abolish power structures and level the game for everyone to take part in decision-making. Some people call that democracy, others call that anarchy, depending on their political background. Authoritarian tendencies can still exist in a free commune, but it's counter-balanced by the absence of centralized power structures (police, prisons, government) to make other people's lives miserable, and usually by a political culture that power corrupts even the best people and therefore we should fix our problems ourselves without hoping for a messiah to come and fix stuff for everyone else.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      We do not live in authoritarian societies - and it's ridiculous (and offensive to survivors) to suggest that Mao et. all 'were just the other side of the coin'. That Mao said he was fighting for 'freedom for all' is completely besides the point, if in fact he was actually fighting for totalitarian control and mass murder. "these revolts for change have been crushed precisely because new people have been placed in power," No, they failed because they were never quests for freedom in the first place. How many times does that experiment have to repeat itself for people to dismiss with that delusion? I'm not comparing communes, to Mao, but I am saying that they are culty and have authoritarian tendencies way beyond what we have in regular societies. In culty situations, many of your personal views are scrutinized and you're pressured to 'be and think' a certain way. They have the power to excise you because you don't fit the mould. In regular society, you're generally free to be whatever kind of fool you want on your own land.

wolverine876 5y ago

> 'Free thinkers', bent on re-thinking civilization, can be surprisingly authoritarian. Authoritarians usually use the existing legal system to oppress 'free thinkers'. It's the minority, the fringe, that get oppressed.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jollybean 5y ago
Authoritarians usually come from the fringe and change the system of power, i.e. Castro, Qaddafi, Stalin, Mao etc..
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Stalin, Mao, and I think Castro (I don't know about Qaddafi) were totalitarians, single parties that exercised total control. Authoritarians are people like Putin, an undemocratic dominant power among some competing power centers (though maybe Russian politics has shifted into totalitarian). Maybe we can say that authoritarians use the system to control things; totalitarians build a system of only themselves (or their party, such as the Soviet and Chinese Communists).
- southerntofu 5y ago
  We live in very authoritarian societies. The names you quotes are just opposite sides of the same political culture/quadrant. It's important to point out that popular revolts are often anti-authoritarian, fighting for freedom and equality for all. Such is the story of the Paris Commune, the Makhnovtchina, the Spanish revolution, the Chiapas zapatistas uprising... Most of these revolts for change have been crushed precisely because new people have been placed in power, and that's why most communes seek to explicitly abolish power structures and level the game for everyone to take part in decision-making. Some people call that democracy, others call that anarchy, depending on their political background. Authoritarian tendencies can still exist in a free commune, but it's counter-balanced by the absence of centralized power structures (police, prisons, government) to make other people's lives miserable, and usually by a political culture that power corrupts even the best people and therefore we should fix our problems ourselves without hoping for a messiah to come and fix stuff for everyone else.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    We do not live in authoritarian societies - and it's ridiculous (and offensive to survivors) to suggest that Mao et. all 'were just the other side of the coin'. That Mao said he was fighting for 'freedom for all' is completely besides the point, if in fact he was actually fighting for totalitarian control and mass murder. "these revolts for change have been crushed precisely because new people have been placed in power," No, they failed because they were never quests for freedom in the first place. How many times does that experiment have to repeat itself for people to dismiss with that delusion? I'm not comparing communes, to Mao, but I am saying that they are culty and have authoritarian tendencies way beyond what we have in regular societies. In culty situations, many of your personal views are scrutinized and you're pressured to 'be and think' a certain way. They have the power to excise you because you don't fit the mould. In regular society, you're generally free to be whatever kind of fool you want on your own land.