Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And if you're going to set up some sort of joint ownership on the land, you really really really need to be 100% sure what the property laws are in the location you choose... because declaring your own "laws" in your commune does not negate the law of the land. And while you're at, research contract law as well, because you may have to actually become either a church or a corporation to legally do what you want to do without any one person having all the power/assets or all the responsibility (aka LIABILITY). Property and contract law is the minefield before you get into insurance and liability.
We've researched forming a cooperative with a few of our neighbors. We would all own our own land and residences, but would pool resources for major expenditures for common use, like tractors and other heavy equipment. So far, while the 10 of us can agree that it's a good idea, that's the only agreement we can make... everyone has their own priorities and agendas, and achieving a unanimous agreement is pretty impossible. Seriously, tractor -- good idea, but one person likes John Deere, one person likes Kubota, one person wants new, one person wants to get a fixer-upper, no one wants to be on the loan if it's needed, no one can agree which implements and attachments are needed now vs. later, and whether the availability of those should be a deciding factor on which manufacturer or size we get, and how do we divvy up the use & maintenance. Seriously, 16 months arguing over a single TRACTOR.....
There are options out there for sure, sometimes you have to make your own.
While my family has some ground, having more is a good thing but the prices here are outragous. I saw one piece of ground, 80 acres of good river bottom, with irrigation in place, $30,000.00 per acre. You cannot raise enough crops or livestock to make the payments in that case.
Realistically, that place is surrounded by developments and if somebody does buy it, it will be put under concrete, but the prices here are still far too high for ag ground.
We did find a solution though. With the current depression, several speculators have land sitting idle and can't move. They pay taxes on it and make the payments, but no money coming in.
The ground is still growing grass in hayfields that then dies and dries in the field creating fire hazzards. Many municipalities are demanding the hay be cut to prevent wildfire fuels, and some of the small holders here with equipment are either cutting the hay on shares, or being paid to cut the hay on these vacant lots. Not enough ground in most of them to make it worthwhile for larger operations, but small guys can do pretty good if they have a swather and a baler.
What we have done is entered into an agreement with a realtor who has a very nice piece of ground, that he buy the seeds and pays for the electricity to run the sprinklers, and we supply the equipment, manpower and fuel, and we will farm the place.
We get 1/2 the hay, he gets 1/2 the hay. His ground will be worked and have good fields so the value when he sells is better.
Right now the fields are going back to native and it is not producing much of anything, but by working together, we get the hay we need for our livestock and for sale, he has a productive piece of ground for sale and can sell his share of the hay to pay for the taxes and payments.
Works for both of us by pooling resources.
have to think outside the box sometimes.
To the OP, Growing up is a real b*tch. Too bad life isn't a Disney movie where the characters live happily ever after in their castle on a hill.
Oh and one more thing, people pooling their money for an enterprise is exactly what Wall Street exists for. Many people buy shares in a company, the company produces a product and pays dividends on the shares to the stockholders.
Not a new idea.
Get enough shares in enough companies that pay good dividends on their stock, and you can afford to have your castle with servents.
Mutual funds are one way to invest small amounts with a lot of other people to buy stocks they normally couldn't afford.
Finance 101, and it does work this way and has for a long time without having to even know the other investors.
Then you can have your rainbows and pepermint and strawberry wine and piece and love and whatever without having to get up in the morning.
You are, BTW, very much mistaken about the "freedom" of animals.
Wild animals live a very intense existence, from the chickadee to the elk. They all have predators. They all struggle every day to find enough food to eat, to find a safe place to breed, to find water, to stay warm when it's cold and to find shelter from the storms. People romanticize wild horses, but they are frequently covered in sores from not only predators but the terrain, often die early from broken legs or necks fleeing from predators, or covered in ticks and flies and other parasites. They lose their children to everything from blizzards thruough illnesses to starvation.
"Domesticated" animals have it much better. They are well treated, medicated when necessary, and have enough to eat - they can even get humans to come out and feed them when 'normal' people wouldn't be caught dead outside. If they need shelter, it is provided. If they need help delivering their babies, or feeding them after they are born, they get it. They only have one miserable day in ther lives - two, if they are a bull that has to be steered or a stallion that has to be gelded.
You can believe that animals in the wild do nothing but graze, mate, and sleep in the sun, but the truth is that it is a never ending battle just to survive. There is nothing happy in it, nothing joyous, and very little freedom to do as they please, except in the minds of poets who never see the reality.
Wild animals are free. That itself makes them better off. Wild animals do all of it, fight for survival, graze, mate, sleep in the sun, there is a time for everything. Enough with this life is tough and serious crap, please.
Symbiosis = sustainable. My dog may look like our neighborhood wolves, but she outweighs them by about 50 lbs because food magically appears in her bowl everyday with no more effort than getting up from the toasty warm hearth and meandering into the kitchen. We do make her earn her keep since she is a working dog (symbosis again!) but we take care of her, too.
The same goes for any pet or livestock animal that is raised and looked after by people who believe they deserve to live the happiest little critter lives they can as naturally as is safe and practical given the particular circumstances. It's my job (with my big ol' human brain) to make sure "Drumstick", "Pork Chop" and "Lambikins" are laxing and smiling right up until they end up on the dinner table or in the freezer. Unfortunately, too many people don't grok the whole symbiosis thing
I think someone needs to look up the word symbiosis
OD
And in the instance being discussed, "symbiosis" = "unnatural".
Looked at from a certain perspective, a domesticated animal is a TOTALLY different beastie than its wild brethren. You've bred the instincts out of it, for your (mankind's) own benefit. You've taken what was once a beautiful part of the natural order and turned it into a fat, happy, unknowing slave to do your bidding.
Yes, it's "symbiosis" in the sense that it's two species "getting along" - but at what cost to the animal? Denying them their true nature?
No, it ISN'T your job - you've simply MADE it yours. Yes, I know the whole "dominion over beasts" thing, but that's a man-made concept, not a natural one.
Now if you want to talk about pilot-fish and whales, or aphids and ants, THEN you're talking symbiosis - BOTH parties benefit without subduing their innate natural tendencies. It's a NATURAL relationship. But don't ever think that anything Man does to animals is "natural", unless it's to allow them to live - and suffer, and die - the way Nature intended.
It's like the hunters here in PA who claim they're thinning the herds for "ecological reasons - maintaining the delicate balance".
BS.
If they were TRULY interested in ecology, they'd burn down the multi-million-dollar housing developments and malls that Man has thrown up in the middle of the woods, driving these animals into smaller, more concentrated pockets of non-sustaining land and forcing them to "invade" their pretty little Home Depot-designed backyards. Let them jackhammer up the highways with the idiots driving 90MPH that are altering and impeding the natural movement rhythms of the animals. Let them stop hunting the "varmints" - THEY have their place in the food chain too, and by plinking them for "sport" and "protecting their neighborhood" they're destroying that critical natural balance, just because it's inconvenient and threatening to THEM.
Yes, I grok symbiosis - probably more than is appreciated when it comes to discussions like this.
*putting on Nomex underwear*
Oh boy... all I can say here is that only when I see you wandering the countryside clothed in woven grass, wielding a spear and berry basket, and grunting, will I give this post a second thought. If you hate your species so much why do you continue to exist as one of its evil members? It's easy to "quit."
This post reminds me of typical liberals who incessantly bellyache about how evil the rich are... and these liberals themselves are far richer than the average Joe. When I see them living in a modest 400 sq ft home, driving a Metro, and forgoing all the entertaining (and expensive) electronic leashes we have these days--when I see them living like Thoreau on Walden--I'll give them a second thought.
This post reminds me of typical liberals who incessantly bellyache about how evil the rich are... and these liberals themselves are far richer than the average Joe. When I see them living in a modest 400 sq ft home, driving a Metro, and forgoing all the entertaining (and expensive) electronic leashes we have these days--when I see them living like Thoreau on Walden--I'll give them a second thought.
Perhaps you'd consider painting with a somewhat narrower brush...
Oh boy... all I can say here is that only when I see you wandering the countryside clothed in woven grass, wielding a spear and berry basket, and grunting, will I give this post a second thought. If you hate your species so much why do you continue to exist as one of its evil members? It's easy to "quit."
This post reminds me of typical liberals who incessantly bellyache about how evil the rich are... and these liberals themselves are far richer than the average Joe. When I see them living in a modest 400 sq ft home, driving a Metro, and forgoing all the entertaining (and expensive) electronic leashes we have these days--when I see them living like Thoreau on Walden--I'll give them a second thought.
Glass Houses on parade.
You're so far off the mark it isn't even funny. You know nothing about me or how I live, so save your Dr. Kevorkian speech for someone who needs it.
Perhaps you'd consider painting with a somewhat narrower brush...
The point was that those who crow the loudest about "sharing wealth" are those who are generally the wealthiest. For example, listen to Al Gore for green living... in his giant mansion that uses more heating fuel in a day than most people use in a month if they are truly "living green." Or Michelle Obama telling us that "someone needs to sacrifice"... when she blows more money in one day on some damn stupid "brunch" than I've spent in the last ten years--probably twenty. Not that I really care all that much (other than our tax dollars are paying for that ****), but I'm not going to listen to people like that telling me to be frugal and share my "wealth." They have no idea what a frugal lifestyle is.
If you are going to be rich, be rich. Fine by me. But don't come off bellyaching about how we all need to share the wealth. Yeah, sounds good... YOU go first. I accept Paypal.
Mutualism, which is the most common connotation of the term "symbiosis" = a cooperative relationship between dissimilar organisms for mutual benefit.
Commune = symbiosis of disparate people
Farm = symbiosis of disparate species
I don't actually subscribe to the whole "dominion over animals" BS. Humans are simply one creature in a vast ecosystem. Our claim to fame is that our brains allow us to be consummate problem solvers, which can be highly beneficial to us and our plant and animal brethren when used for "the Light".
Seriously, do you honestly think that a prehistoric wild canine would have hooked up with man instead of eating him in his sleep or running away if there weren't some benefit to the arrangement? "Hmmm.... Blarg will give me food, water, shelter, warmth, companionship with a heck of a lot less effort than I can get it on my own and I only have to guard his fire and carry a few things now and then." Animals aren't stupid, they know a good deal when they see it. Anyone who has ever worked with wild or feral animals can tell you that gaining their trust isn't easy.
Yes, we may have altered their instincts and behaviors over centuries of domestication; but it hasn't been entirely for our benefit. The animals that we have in domestication actually thrive in our care, that's why they're now domesticated. Animals that don't thrive in our care aren't domesticated... cuz why would you keep trying to obtain an animal that keeps getting sick and dying on you? (Note -- I'm talking about ethical domestication, not factory confinement farms and puppy mills)
But honestly, if you think that my dog or cat has lost ALL her natural instincts, then send me your address and I'll mail you the next half eaten dead critter they've hunted down in the woods and brought home to the rest of the "pack".
Some of their instincts may have been altered, but we have to adapt to them just as much as they have to adapt to us... unless you're one of those people who think all animals exist solely to serve us with no regard to the animal's comfort, health and safety. So, I don' think there is anything unnatural about humans and animals living and working together for mutual benefit.
Of course, there are other forms of symbiosis... parasitism, commenalism and the like. But, hey, guess what... humans can and do have those sorts of relationships with each other, too. I'd venture to say that the majority of human interactions are parasitic, or at the very least commenal; so one could derive the basic nature of humans from that behavior. So maybe, it's the whole commune and community idea that's unnatural... that mutualism on a scale larger than a family unit is against human nature.
I don't know anything about much of anything. But I do know hypocritical misanthropy when I read it.
Oh, you mean like this??
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
This post reminds me of typical liberals who incessantly bellyache about how evil the rich are... and these liberals themselves are far richer than the average Joe.
No, I guess that's "political misanthropy."
Based on their political contributions, five of the ten richest people in America are Republican, three are independent and two are Democrats. One of the Independents and both Democrats (numbers 1, 2 and 3 on the list) voluntarily share substantial amounts of their wealth with the less fortunate each year. I haven't had time yet to fully research the other seven.
Find another tree to bark up, willya?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- probably more than is appreciated when it comes to discussions like this.
