4 ms·

> expelled from your home because your neighbors dislike you The cause of being expelled, would be that everybody thinks you should be expelled - not that no o

> expelled from your home because your neighbors dislike you The cause of being expelled, would be that everybody thinks you should be expelled - not that no one 'likes' you. Framing the judgement as resting on private preferences, on likeability, diminishes common humanity which should be generally at large and is crucial to the persistence of any group. A viable community group will include members with tolerance and good judgement who would deny a consensus to expel without good cause. If such qualities are absent (completely so! to enable bad consensus) no amount of individual rights will make up for their absence.

stale2002 5y ago
> no amount of individual rights will make up for their absence. Of course they will. My neighbors can't get me kicked out of my apartment complex, because of my race, no matter how much they want that to happen. And if my landlord attempts to do that, I might be able to get a big monetary settlement out of it, depending on how many mistakes they make, while going about that.
- strainer 5y ago
  If every one of your neighbors is prepared to make you leave - for any wrong reason, you are then isolated among them. A capacity to remain there may help somewhat, but doesn't make up for the unfortunate circumstance, that you are surrounded by people who rightly or wrongly reject you.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > My neighbors can't get me kicked out of my apartment complex, because of my race, no matter how much they want that to happen. The same is true in any self-organized community i know of. If anything, it would probably generate an invitation for the complaining neighbors to try and find some better suited place for them to live. That is because the only communities i've visited were very much antiracist, anticapitalist, antisexist. And despite all the instances of racism i've seen with my eyes (we are after all, all chidren of one of the most racist countries on earth), i've never seen in a community the kind of racial segregation and hatred i've seen on the streets of big french cities. I mean, i could imagine some white supremacists setting up a community. But they would not let the rest of us in in the first place, and certainly wouldn't require a consensus to cause harm (whether psychological or physical) to their enemies. In a barbaric society where prison or death sentence are supposed forms of justice, it can appear that excluding someone from a community is simply a matter of personal preferences or bigotry. However, having to part ways with someone because they're harming your community and there doesn't appear to be ways to resolve the problem, is a serious concern that you may have to deal with sooner or later whether you like it or not. But proposing to exclude someone for a trivial matter would instantly raise red flags as an authoritarian manipulation scheme. Life in a commune is not comparable to life under a nation-state in most regards. Your neighbors in a commune are not just people who happen to live nearby, they're people you live with. And certainly there's no landlord to deal with who have unreasonable power over others :)
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > The same is true in any self-organized community i know of. Alright cool. So then we agree that communities, democratically or not, should not be allowed by society to just kick people out, based on a "consensus" vote, for all circumstances. We agree that such communities, should be prevented, using the force of law, from engaging in certain actions, such as kicking people out based on their race, even if it is done democratically. And we should agree that allowing people to be kicked out, for any reason, is not a feature. Instead it is a bug. Such as if those people democratically kick out certain races. And this whole argument of "why on earth would you be allowed to live in a place where nobody wants to live with you?" is a bad argument, such as in the circumstance of people wanted to kick out people based on race. And when you ask "what's the alternative?", the alterative is individual rights, that prevent communities from kicking people out of where they live based on race, even if it is democratic. And the "more humane" way of handling "undesirable" people is a system of individual rights, that prevents communities from kicking people out of where they live, based on characteristics such as race.
    - dkersten 5y ago
      > to just kick people out Neither does this place. It can only happen by consensus: that is, if everyone agrees. Not some majority, but everyone. Obviously the question of what were to happen to your shares if you did get kicked out is unanswered, but aside from that, if you want to be able to continue living somewhere where everyone hates you enough that they are all calling for you to get kicked out, then maybe this community isn't for you, you can have that by living basically anywhere else. If you're even a little involved in the community, then it would be pretty difficult to get everyone else to work against you to kick you out. If every one of my neighbours were to conspire against me right now, where the houses are privately owned, I bet they could get me to leave by being hostile enough. I do agree that a system of individual rights might be a more appropriate model for handling this, but I also don't know their full set of bylaws.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        > It can only happen by consensus: that is, if everyone agrees Ok, and if everyone uses a "consensus" to kick someone out, based on race, that should not be allowed, and the government monopoly on violence, should be used to enact legal arrests or fines on those people/communities. The law should come in, and prevent this group from kicking people out, based on race, even if they have "consensus". > then maybe this community isn't for you Maybe communities that are engaging in actions that break individual rights, that are protected by law, should be shut down by the government, or arrested, or fined, for breaking anti-discrimination laws.

stale2002 5y ago

> no amount of individual rights will make up for their absence. Of course they will. My neighbors can't get me kicked out of my apartment complex, because of my race, no matter how much they want that to happen. And if my landlord attempts to do that, I might be able to get a big monetary settlement out of it, depending on how many mistakes they make, while going about that.

strainer 5y ago
If every one of your neighbors is prepared to make you leave - for any wrong reason, you are then isolated among them. A capacity to remain there may help somewhat, but doesn't make up for the unfortunate circumstance, that you are surrounded by people who rightly or wrongly reject you.
southerntofu 5y ago
> My neighbors can't get me kicked out of my apartment complex, because of my race, no matter how much they want that to happen. The same is true in any self-organized community i know of. If anything, it would probably generate an invitation for the complaining neighbors to try and find some better suited place for them to live. That is because the only communities i've visited were very much antiracist, anticapitalist, antisexist. And despite all the instances of racism i've seen with my eyes (we are after all, all chidren of one of the most racist countries on earth), i've never seen in a community the kind of racial segregation and hatred i've seen on the streets of big french cities. I mean, i could imagine some white supremacists setting up a community. But they would not let the rest of us in in the first place, and certainly wouldn't require a consensus to cause harm (whether psychological or physical) to their enemies. In a barbaric society where prison or death sentence are supposed forms of justice, it can appear that excluding someone from a community is simply a matter of personal preferences or bigotry. However, having to part ways with someone because they're harming your community and there doesn't appear to be ways to resolve the problem, is a serious concern that you may have to deal with sooner or later whether you like it or not. But proposing to exclude someone for a trivial matter would instantly raise red flags as an authoritarian manipulation scheme. Life in a commune is not comparable to life under a nation-state in most regards. Your neighbors in a commune are not just people who happen to live nearby, they're people you live with. And certainly there's no landlord to deal with who have unreasonable power over others :)
- stale2002 5y ago
  > The same is true in any self-organized community i know of. Alright cool. So then we agree that communities, democratically or not, should not be allowed by society to just kick people out, based on a "consensus" vote, for all circumstances. We agree that such communities, should be prevented, using the force of law, from engaging in certain actions, such as kicking people out based on their race, even if it is done democratically. And we should agree that allowing people to be kicked out, for any reason, is not a feature. Instead it is a bug. Such as if those people democratically kick out certain races. And this whole argument of "why on earth would you be allowed to live in a place where nobody wants to live with you?" is a bad argument, such as in the circumstance of people wanted to kick out people based on race. And when you ask "what's the alternative?", the alterative is individual rights, that prevent communities from kicking people out of where they live based on race, even if it is democratic. And the "more humane" way of handling "undesirable" people is a system of individual rights, that prevents communities from kicking people out of where they live, based on characteristics such as race.
  - dkersten 5y ago
    > to just kick people out Neither does this place. It can only happen by consensus: that is, if everyone agrees. Not some majority, but everyone. Obviously the question of what were to happen to your shares if you did get kicked out is unanswered, but aside from that, if you want to be able to continue living somewhere where everyone hates you enough that they are all calling for you to get kicked out, then maybe this community isn't for you, you can have that by living basically anywhere else. If you're even a little involved in the community, then it would be pretty difficult to get everyone else to work against you to kick you out. If every one of my neighbours were to conspire against me right now, where the houses are privately owned, I bet they could get me to leave by being hostile enough. I do agree that a system of individual rights might be a more appropriate model for handling this, but I also don't know their full set of bylaws.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > It can only happen by consensus: that is, if everyone agrees Ok, and if everyone uses a "consensus" to kick someone out, based on race, that should not be allowed, and the government monopoly on violence, should be used to enact legal arrests or fines on those people/communities. The law should come in, and prevent this group from kicking people out, based on race, even if they have "consensus". > then maybe this community isn't for you Maybe communities that are engaging in actions that break individual rights, that are protected by law, should be shut down by the government, or arrested, or fined, for breaking anti-discrimination laws.