4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
  - dkersten 5y ago
    > and if everyone uses a "consensus" to kick someone out Then do you really want to live there? At this point, it becomes important what the rules say happens to your shares if you're kicked out, they did not explain this in the video. > The law should come in > that are protected by law It does. These people aren't above the law. You are free to challenge them in court if you feel your are being discriminated against. > should be shut down by the government, or arrested, or fined, for breaking anti-discrimination laws. And if it happens, maybe they would be. Until they actually break the laws, by kicking someone out or otherwise breaking anti-discrimination laws, they haven't broken any laws. You are equating "their internal rules would allow them to" to them actually doing it. They aren't and haven't (she said they've never kicked anyone out and would do it only in extreme cases). So why are you so hung up about something that's never happened? Their internal rules cannot override state or federal anti-discrimination laws and you have the same recourse there as you do anywhere else: you bring them to court for breaking the law. If that’s not enough guarantee for your comfort then the solution is to not buy a house there. Nobody is forcing anyone to live there, if they’re not comfortable with the community or it’s rules.
strainer 5y ago
It would also be a bug to force people to associate closely with people they do not wish to, for whatever reason. A communal group differs from an open civic group in that people wish to live more intimately with each other than in other collectives. Its a privilege to be in the group not a right. It would also not be straightforward to determine whether particular rejections significantly involved conscious or unconscious prejudices. Not straightforward at all, yet the groups actions may be scrutinized, judged unlawful and prosecuted when appropriate by other authorities - but that is a different thing from confining it to remove the possibility of it acting unlawfully.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > for whatever reason No, it is not a good thing for people to be allowed to using illegal discriminatory practices. Such groups should be fined or shutdown by the government legal system. > Its a privilege to be in the group not a right Discriminatory practices are banned in many places, and you do not have the right to discriminate based on race, for things like housing, in many places. Such practices should have the government sent on you, who should hopefully arrest or fine you, for illegal discrimination based on race, and that is a good thing. > judged unlawful and prosecuted when appropriate by other authorities Ok and current anti-discrimination laws, that exist in many places, are a good thing, and if they got prosecuted for that illegal behavior, that would be good.
  - strainer 5y ago
    I'm not debating any particular discrimination laws, just reminding that they need to be applied carefuly. Do you believe that companies should not be allowed to fire people, because they might do so unfairly ? That clubs should not be allowed to eject people because they might do so unfairly? Its all rather putting the cart before the horse.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > I'm not debating any particular discrimination laws Ok, so then you agree that are current discrimination laws are a good thing, and should be applied even to communes, such as if they discriminate illegally against certain races, even if it was done via "consensus".

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.
- dkersten 5y ago
  > and if everyone uses a "consensus" to kick someone out Then do you really want to live there? At this point, it becomes important what the rules say happens to your shares if you're kicked out, they did not explain this in the video. > The law should come in > that are protected by law It does. These people aren't above the law. You are free to challenge them in court if you feel your are being discriminated against. > should be shut down by the government, or arrested, or fined, for breaking anti-discrimination laws. And if it happens, maybe they would be. Until they actually break the laws, by kicking someone out or otherwise breaking anti-discrimination laws, they haven't broken any laws. You are equating "their internal rules would allow them to" to them actually doing it. They aren't and haven't (she said they've never kicked anyone out and would do it only in extreme cases). So why are you so hung up about something that's never happened? Their internal rules cannot override state or federal anti-discrimination laws and you have the same recourse there as you do anywhere else: you bring them to court for breaking the law. If that’s not enough guarantee for your comfort then the solution is to not buy a house there. Nobody is forcing anyone to live there, if they’re not comfortable with the community or it’s rules.

strainer 5y ago

It would also be a bug to force people to associate closely with people they do not wish to, for whatever reason. A communal group differs from an open civic group in that people wish to live more intimately with each other than in other collectives. Its a privilege to be in the group not a right. It would also not be straightforward to determine whether particular rejections significantly involved conscious or unconscious prejudices. Not straightforward at all, yet the groups actions may be scrutinized, judged unlawful and prosecuted when appropriate by other authorities - but that is a different thing from confining it to remove the possibility of it acting unlawfully.

stale2002 5y ago
> for whatever reason No, it is not a good thing for people to be allowed to using illegal discriminatory practices. Such groups should be fined or shutdown by the government legal system. > Its a privilege to be in the group not a right Discriminatory practices are banned in many places, and you do not have the right to discriminate based on race, for things like housing, in many places. Such practices should have the government sent on you, who should hopefully arrest or fine you, for illegal discrimination based on race, and that is a good thing. > judged unlawful and prosecuted when appropriate by other authorities Ok and current anti-discrimination laws, that exist in many places, are a good thing, and if they got prosecuted for that illegal behavior, that would be good.
- strainer 5y ago
  I'm not debating any particular discrimination laws, just reminding that they need to be applied carefuly. Do you believe that companies should not be allowed to fire people, because they might do so unfairly ? That clubs should not be allowed to eject people because they might do so unfairly? Its all rather putting the cart before the horse.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > I'm not debating any particular discrimination laws Ok, so then you agree that are current discrimination laws are a good thing, and should be applied even to communes, such as if they discriminate illegally against certain races, even if it was done via "consensus".