[CLUE-Talk] [OT] A Call to Action

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 07-12 15:43, Jed S. Baer wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:07:15 -0400
> Joe Brockmeier <jbrockmeier at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> <big snip>
> 
> Well, www.backwoodshome.org is an interesting read, for various topics
> involving self-sufficiency, and independence from the Federal govt.
> 
> > > Better Yet:  have many people grow their own small gardens at their 
> > 
> > Yeah - but some of us live in apartments... :) Not much gardening area 
> > here...
> 
> Hey, Zonker, at the above website, there are instructions for building a
> tipi, and a yurt. Course, you'd still need a patch of ground somplace, um,
> and I suppose power and a phone line would be mandatory. ;-)

As someone who actually spent a great many years (over five years) of my
childhood living in a yurt (One of the many "benefits" of being a child of
hippie baby boomers, I guess), I can say a yurt is doable...I don't know how
"independent"(1) it can really make you, though - they still got you with the
property tax(2). Also, the idea of going back to using an outhouse in the dead
of winter doesn't sound so great. :) My parents also took part in a great
many other alternative things, like living on a commune for about a year and
a half, taking part in a food co-op, etc.  They eventually ditched the food
co-op (and it imploded soon after, anyway) because the same few people were
always getting strapped with all the work, while a great many others were
always making excuses for not being able to help, and so those doing all the
work soon tired of it.  They did switch to bulk food soon after: nearly the
same prices without all the politics - just go and buy it and be done with
it.

The commune itself had a great many issues (most of them revolving around
the tensions between people actually working or helping in some way, and
leeches who just want to turn on and drop out), although from my
understanding, it still goes on in some sort of limited capacity...even
though it's never really been a self-sufficient one - most of the residents
have/had day jobs. When we were living there, there was a woman who actually
set up a tipi and lived there for a while. She was one of the leeches,
though, and eventually got the message that she wasn't wanted there, so she
moved out to Alaska. Not so say that it was all bad - some of my best
childhood memories are from there. They used to have a big fall festival
thing, and have a big bonfire and a barn dance. A blast for kids, but I'm
not sure how sound the economic model was - many of the adults there were
children of rich parents, for the most part, and just spending the 60's and
70's getting their kicks in.

The only place I've seen any real success in some of these group plans is in
a religious commune or group. My grandmother and some of my aunts and uncles
live in a commune (some of my relatives that are ex-members call it a cult.
I tend to not be a fan of it, either, but it works for them) called the
Bruderhof - www.bruderhof.org. I guess the unity of the belief system helps
them all to coordinate their effort, and they don't have the slackers for
long. They basically support themselves via various free market ventures,
though, which is kind of ironic. The most known ventures are Community
Playthings and Plough Publishing House. 

Growing up in PA, I saw that the Amish model seemed to work pretty well for
them as well. They share a lot of the work, and have religious roots to
unify them. I knew some Mennonites, too, but I don't know much about their
culture. I sometimes wonder if Karl Marx watched groups like this and
thought it could just scale up to the national level, and without the
religion. Seems to be quite the leap in logic, IMHO. Even in these groups I
mentioned above, some people are more equal than others, or they openly
participate in a greater free market system outside their own context. 


(1) Someone loaned me a book last year called "Living Debt Free". The book
basically talks about how the cost of where you live is your single greatest
expense, and it tries to show you how you should try to buy, and then pay
off, a house, but in FIVE YEARS. Now, obviously, for most folks, this is not
going to be a glamorous house...but that's the interesting part. The next
step is, after the first house is paid for, you sell the first house, and go
buy a house for double the price of the first - assuming the market is the
same, you have a job paying as much as, or more than before, and you can
then proceed to pay for the second house in five years. One of the more
interesting points is when the book goes through some scenarios like divorce
after seven years of house payments, losing a job after fifteen years, if
someone is doing the standard 30-year loan thing. It shows how much equity
you would have in these scenarios, and it isn't what most people probably
think it is. It also debunks the "tax break" that sometimes persuades some
people into buying a house they really can't afford. Another basic rule of
thumb it stresses is that you should never have a mortgage payment that is
bigger than 1/4 your monthly pay. It also talk about cars and other
financial issues, but the main thrust is the house and living expenses
because that's where most people put their most money.

(2) Something which I consider highly unconstitutional - if they can continue
to tax you on something you allegedly own, how is it really yours? Or are
you just renting it from the government? Since one third of this nation is
already not in private hands, my guess would be that there are definitely
those in the government who would think that the answer to that question is
"Yes, you only get to keep that land/house at OUR behest."

> > > Next: Eat more rabbit!  Grow your own rabbits (The big white ones are 
> > 
> > Kill fluffy?? :( It really depends on the hunter, a lot of people end up
> > spending more money on gear, beer, travel and having the meat processed 
> > than they'd spend if they just bought a side of beef from Tony's Meats.
> 
> Yeah. Big distinction I notice between, say, my mother, who was raised on
> a farm, and someone whose only interaction with live animals is their
> pets. (Not pointing at anyone in particular, here.) Did anyone watch that
> PBS show about the couples/families who lived in the Montana wilderness
> for a while? Livestock is what it is. But you're probably better off, both
> economically and nutritionally, spending the same money you would for
> animal feed on people-feed (e.g. grains, etc.). Why process the
> calories/vitamins/minerals through an animal first? Unless you want the
> manure to fertilize your garden.

Can't speak about rabbits, but my parents also raised chickens for a while.
My parents were NOT raised on farms...and I think the hassle of defending the
chickens against owls, foxes, and the family dog got old real fast. Not to
mention the slaughtering and cleaning process for chickens seems like quite
a bit of work for not so much meat. It almost made a vegetarian out of me.
:) Ok, maybe not...I just knew that was one job I never wanted to have -
working in the slaughterhouse was ruled out pretty early. Oh yeah, for a
period of time my parents tried out the vegetarian thing, too. I think that
was the least fun period of my youth. I would try to eat at friends' houses
for dinner as much as possible.

I guess this dissertation is really what it looks like: my two cents on the
"getting back to basics" or the Communist fads that swept the baby boomer
generation. There are probably few people, based on their environment and
upbringing, who were more likely than me to be a devout Socialist/Communist.
It wasn't until late university that I finally rejected most of the
philosophies that pervaded my childhood environment and lineage: my
grandfather lived most of his life as pacifist (after he served in WWII) and
on the commune - my father is a Quaker, a Conscientious Objecter and a
Democrat...maybe it was BECAUSE of those experiences, but I can tell you I
firmly reject most of those now...especially Socialism on the macro level. 

There is a line from A Clockwork Orange where the priest is arguing against
the treatment, and he says, "He has no real choice, has he? When a man
ceases to be able to choose, he ceases to be a man." I think this applies to
the redistribution of wealth by the iron fist of government...which is what
a communist or socialist system would imply. Helping out your fellow man by
giving to charity, etc., is an entirely good and welcome thing, WHEN DONE
VOLUNTARILY. I do not think forcing people to hand over their hard-earned
wealth to those who allegedly "need" it is any kind of wholesome goodness,
and I don't think it raises the level of human existence to any kind of
higher plane. 

I actually think it can and does work on the micro level, however. It's just
not for everyone, believe me. It is hard work, especially if it's a
farm-based commune. And then there is the human element if there is little
real leadership - you'll have an uphill battle against the leeches without
it.

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at bigfoot.com  
NOTE: My ISP will be changing soon. Please use bigfoot.com.
The effect of one upright individual is incalculable. 
-Oscar Arias