I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:43 am Post subject: Small town takeover: An alternative solution?
Okay everyone, here is a twist on the intentional community option. Some people are in the process of planning for (or at least talking about) forming an intentional community to weather the ill effects PO is going to likely trigger. The reasoning goes kind of along the lines that, "well if civilization is going to collapse because of its inherent unsustainability, then at least I/my family/my friends/people who think like me will be able to survive, if not prosper." It's a sound argument. It's also very difficult to get into practice. I don't know what the hard numbers are, but glancing at the Intentional Communities ( www.ic.org ) website there seem to be a number of communities that promise the moon but wind up lost in space wandering or worse, still stuck on the ground after years of effort. Discussion in this forum section referenced two communities where progress was less than optimal (DancingRabbit and Earthaven). Rather go into a discussion on why this may be the case or get into a general rant against intentional communities, lets look at another option to deal with an energy starved future.
The take over of a small town.
Now before you Mad-Maxers out there get some interesting visuals, I will state this would be through thoroughly legal and political methods. It has been long argued by some of PeakOil's leading published authors that the small town has the brightest future, or at least is the most survivable. But the problem is your average small town is the least equipped to handle the pending changes and probably is afflicted with a completely incorrect political and philosophical mindset. Small town midwest (US) has been largely bypassed by the global economy and raveged by its effects. In large swath of the Great Plains, towns are hemorrhaging people to the cities due in part to the advent of industrial ag. But yet these locations cling to the hope of rebirth through tools such as land give away, high speed internet and service sector employment, while largely accepting of the industrialization of agriculture and de-industrialization of manufacturing. Yet many of these locations are sitting on a most valuable resource without even knowing it: a pre-established community (buildings and all), many still situated on a basic road network and rail lines (abandoned or not) in regions significantly under their carrying capacity.
Why build a community from scratch when you can remake an existing one?
Intentional communities have to be built from scratch, with practically every last item needing to be built, fabricated or shipped in. That’s a lot of work. Small towns offer the advantage of existing buildings. They may not be optimal, but they are available. The problem is that people can't just randomly relocated to any number of given small towns and expect changes. You'd likely be in the minority (politically and philosophically) and unless you had access to independent wealth or work, you'd run out of options in a heartbeat. Many of these small towns advertise free to cheap lands because employment is virtually nil.
No, a coordinated plan of attack would be required. To maximize the effect and increase the likelihood of success, relocation must be carefully targeted and concentrated. Small town locations should be located in an area with sufficient water access, limited population, pre-existing infrastructure, some distance from major cities and most importantly - a workable political system (a pre-existing incorporation of very small location with a tiny electorate). Areas in the US include most of the Great Plains, upper Midwest and rural New England. Targeting is the first step...next comes concentration. This crucial step requires the planning group to decide on a town to take over and make over. By doing that, people with a similar mindset would have to relocate to single town and in the process, recompose the electorate and take over effective control. It doesn't matter how conservative or diametrically opposed your target town may be, you and your allies will have out voted them.
With political control, you can grab control of planning and building permitting, educational policy, infrastructure decision-making and business policy development.
This is a very aggressive technique, especially when implemented over the period of a few months. But recomposition of the electorate happens all the time often over decades with the same results, so there is no reason why it cannot be artificially sped up. Look at the US political map. Whole states like California have been reconfigured due to migration, immigration and deaths (of the original, now elderly, inhabitants). 24 years ago, this state offered the the US Ronald Reagan. I sincerely doubt this state would produce anyone nearly that conservative anytime soon.
To see how a small town take over plan would be carried out...read on. _________________ UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
Here is in my mind, how a small town take over may work in practice:
1) Formation of a planning group with members actively searching out prospective towns. Remember to look for a small town, preferably in a small county with an even smaller electorate. Stay away from major urban areas or other locals that would create an upward pressure on land values or create a flood of refugees to absorb.
2) Creation of a legal organization, charted in the target town/city’s state. This organization will allow the coordination of planning activities and funds management. Give it a non-descript name.
3) Start pooling the planning group’s member funds. Prepare to send some pioneering members to the new community as new residents to get ready to lay the local planning and transition efforts.
4) Make initial purchases of land. Be sure to buy some neighboring farmlands as well as vacant, dilapidated or inexpensive urban lands and property. Don’t forget about the CBD and unutilized industrial properties as well. If the town’s or county’s legal system offers free land for the investment or ways to take over abandoned properties, utilize them as well. To keep suspicions low and preclude the risk of property value increases, make purchases in different names or subsidiaries, if necessary.
5) Send out the first group of initial inhabitants. They should be the ones that could start repairing, building in-town residences as well as refining planning efforts with a local perspective. These persons and/or families would present a welcoming and non-threaten face to the existing residents of the town. Even if the town is located in productive farming area, some of the initial group should take up organic production of a variety of crops and livestock desired of a post peak food supply.
6) Prepare and send out the second wave of new residents. These residents will primarily be founding new businesses in the community. Some will be related to the individual’s skill (dentistry) while others would fill a necessary need of the growing community (solar panel installer). At the same time, the group would create a bank to fund improvements and continued growth. This bank would keep both conventional currency deposits and a ledger of time-value units that could be utilized instead of dollars (local currency). Most business would be cooperatively owned, but privately operated. Aim for a sensible mix of primary and secondary production with a selection of service jobs. Try and introduce local equivalents of mass-produced products. Remember in a de-globalizing world economy, more needs to be produced at a local and regional level anyway.
7) By this time some of the local residents may be getting suspicious so one of the newcomers needs to become visible as the groups spokesperson and leader. This person will have the task of educating the longtime residents about the coming energy crisis and why things are changing. The entire scope of the plan should not be divulged at this point, but aspects of it can be. Do start making public suggestions and modifications. Up to this point, activities have been entirely on private property. Now as the number of PO aware individuals and supporters grow, public suggestions to modify city actions, planning and operation to deal with an energy starved future are made. If the towns inhabitants prove more amiable than expected, some action on these suggestions may occur. Otherwise, expect resistance. At least many of the ideas will be known.
Send in the third wave of new residents. This wave should be larger than the first two and combined with the first two, and along with any local converts, should begin to tip the political balance. The third wave ideally will be composed of individuals and families with specific trades not yet present in the town, but should economic conditions worsen and render some members of the planning group unemployed sooner than expected, these folks can comprise some of the incoming residents. Ideally by the time of the third wave occurs, the newcomers should now comprise close to 50% of the electorate. Maybe not a majority, but a significant group. Prior to this group’s arrival, the preceding two waves need to have gotten some of the residences ready for inhabitation, work positions readied and excess food stored for new arrivals. Saved money by the group can also aid in transition costs.
9) Get formally involved in politics. Even if the town is not yet “taken over” politically, run some candidates in council elections. Start lobbying the planning staff to reexamine developmental policies. Get involved with chamber of commerce meetings (that should be interesting!). And most importantly: start publicly preaching the mantra of sustainability.
10) By this point, changes may already be underway, depending on the actions of the local electorate. Regardless of the political situation, prepare and send in the final wave of new residents. This wave should take the newcomer population percentage above 60% and into full control. (if the local jurisdiction requires 2/3rds vote for major decisions, aim for 70% of the electorate.) At this point the group needs to be running a full slate of candidates and demanding that city officials reorient their view points towards the council’s. If city officials are amenable, by all means work with them. Otherwise they should be let go. By this point there may be some extreme resentment from longtime residents, which may make some relations difficult. To help minimize the amount and intensity of the opposition, strong public relations and educational skills will be required of the newcomers, to help convert or win over support. The planning group along with individuals should also be prepared to offer a lot of free/low cost assistance (such as solar energy installation, teaching of new skills or employment into cooperatively owned business) to non member residents. This could go a long way in developing good will.
That is it in a nutshell. Ten general steps to the take over of a small town. Obviously a lot of details are left to be filled in, like the legal nature of the planning group, target area research, fund distribution and disbursement, local currency development, alternative farming techniques, localization strategies and goodwill building activities towards the local population.
Other ideals:
Try and encourage similar operations in nearby towns. It would be even more effective if a number of take over planning groups were able to take over a collection of small towns in the same county or state region. With a number of sustainably operated small towns in the same general area, the region as a whole would be more likely to survive the transition. _________________ UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
If all of this sounds somewhat familiar, it is. I got some of the ideas from a number of community oriented solution sites. Now most ideas were written from the perspective of “what should the government do?” Well I work for local government, and I am not convinced on its ability to change. So I took some of the same ideals and re-did them for perspective of the private planning group.
My goal with this exercise is to see if such a plan might work, how it might be received by people like yourselves that do not need convincing as well as those that believe in growth without limits.
So I offer this plan up for critique:
• Will it work?
• Is it a better-or worse-option than a brand new intentional community?
• Should some of the target town criteria be revised?
• Any ideas for the nature or shape of the legal planning group structure?
• Thoughts on income sharing or fund distribution?
• Different arrangements for property acquisition and ownership or composition of the first newcomers group.
• Discussion of specific (end result) goals for the community.
• Any steps that may be unworkable in practice.
That’s it for now. Thanks for reading this lengthy proposal… _________________ UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
I didnt read it all, but I just wanna say.
If any communities springing up in the Kansas City area need a firearms owner and good shooter with some tactics experience let me know. _________________ "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the
Abyss, the Abyss gazes also into you."
Ammo at a gunfight is like bubblegum in grade school: If you havent brought enough for everyone, you're in trouble
• Will it work?
• Is it a better-or worse-option than a brand new intentional community?
• Should some of the target town criteria be revised?
• Any ideas for the nature or shape of the legal planning group structure?
• Thoughts on income sharing or fund distribution?
• Different arrangements for property acquisition and ownership or composition of the first newcomers group.
• Discussion of specific (end result) goals for the community.
• Any steps that may be unworkable in practice.
That’s it for now. Thanks for reading this lengthy proposal…
Yes, I believe it could work; in fact, there are several movements that parallel this. I believe it's far more viable than an intentional community.
Instead of a bank, with all of the demands for capital and regulatory hurdles, create a credit union. You need, as I recall, to demonstrate a potential (not actual, just potential) membership of 3,000 people. All the informaiton is at http://www.ncua.gov
The town selection criterial are fine; the planning group should probably be a traditional corporate board arrangement with a chairman and ten or so members. Ideally, a couple of lawyers would be included.
I suspect income sharing will not work, not even in principle. When you ask people to subordinate their personal short term interests to those of the group, you'll automatically hit a brick wall, IMO.
The first group needs to keep it simple. Buy everything as individuals, get to know the neighbors, and be nice. Understand that this will be a major challenge.
Side note...there's a certain small town, the name of which is unimportant, that I'm a bit familiar with. In that town resides a fellow who moved there at age two; he's now over 70 years old. He is considered a "furiner", and is not really accepted. Additionally, small towns have an intelligence network that would put the CIA to shame; if you say the hamburger at the local cafe' was bad, expect everyone in town to know you said it by tomorrow - at the latest.
The real problem (isn't it always?) will be the people. Having the discipline to go into an area, by friendly with the locals, avoid being locked into one's own little group, and to avoid trying to convert the locals will be a challenge.
Its called HOSTILE TAKEOVER.But its cheaper than starting from scratch.Probably less organization also,from a technical point of view.Its probably the only other alternative.
Government can change within four years theres time yet.Much smoother.That way maybe your neighbors will like you. _________________ ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6959 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:47 am Post subject:
You put a lot of work into that Pat! It’s nice to see someone think outside the box, as it were.
I agree, small towns are below carrying capacity, away from large population pressures, and many (especially more than an hour from large towns) have comparatively cheap property.
So the question is, why “take over” the town and make ALL the neighbors your enemy when you could make them all (or at least most) your friends and perhaps eventually your allies?
Why not start a mailing list of like-minded folks, find a good little town then just move there as each situation allows, stay low key and make your preparations? If you put up solar panels and the the local ask why – tell them you don't trust those dang (insert your favorite scapegoat here) - small town folks understand being prepared!
Granted their outlook on many things will be different and your family may not “fit in” for several generations – but at least they may last that long.
The communal aspect would be the hard thing to arrange without getting real cock-eyed looks, but one could certainly open a little storefront co-op or even start an informal “buying group”, have a group sponsored truck farm, barter among the members before others, even have little classes on canning or arrowhead making (depending on your outlook - HaHa).
You get all the benefits of becoming members of the larger community along with the advantages of your little PO co-op. _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Joined: Apr 21, 2004 Posts: 508 Location: Republic of Texas
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:38 am Post subject:
I have lived out here in the middle in these small towns with declining populations all my life. I currently live in the country outside a town of around 250. My thoughts as one of the locals:
I don't know of many incorporated towns of less than 1000 people so you'll need at least that many people.
I don't think you'll find any towns with >50% empty houses. I doubt you can find a town with 10% empty houses. You won't be able to move in a majority number of people without building houses.
If you want to put up solar panels or organic farm or whatever, I don't think anyone will care. You can do what you want with your own property. The residents are not going to be as hostile as you seem to think.
Most of the changes I see in your proposal will be seen as good to the local people. Opening businesses, bringing in a dentist - locals will love stuff like this. It's the lack of businesses that make these towns seem like they are drying up. Small towns have a lot of community pride. Economic self-sustainability is seen as a good thing vs. driving 90 miles to get the goods and services you need.
Interesting idea but getting the people and money together to do this would be nearly impossible in my mind. _________________ The road goes on forever and the party never ends - REK
I agree with Pops. If enough PO minded folks just picked a town to move to, and invested in the community, they wouldn't need the hostile takeover bit. And as Pip said, investment in small communities is welcomed by most people.
I also have lived in the same small community for most of my life - recently moving back after several years away. I think if you go at it with the "takeover" mentality, then automatically you're putting yourself in an us-against-them frame of mind. The locals will read into that, and you will have more opposition on your hands than you know what to do with.
Several years ago (early '70's if I recall correctly), there was a group that moved into the Heber Springs area (actually Greers Ferry, if you know the area) of Arkansas. They were a legally functioning organication, with by-laws and the whole nine yards - and were collectively known just as "The Group." They bought a local newspaper, the Arkansas Sun, and lived communally - pretty much keeping to themselves, but at the same time being good citizens in their business dealings, etc. They didn't have any grand designs of "taking over" - but they did invest in the community and open some businesses. Most were well educated (one is now a well known attorney in Little Rock), many were business people, but outside their business dealings, they didn't have a whole lot to do with the community.
Anyway, I'm recalling much of this from memory, so I'm leaving out big chunks (forgive me). The history of The Group is detailed to a degree in a local history of our county that I read recently, Time and the River.
The gist of it is - although they weren't necessarily doing anything "wrong," they were viewed as suspicious by the townsfolk because they basically had bad PR. If they had come in, much like Pops has done in his own town, learning from, and working with, the local population, rather than segregating themselves from it, they would have been more successful. FYI - the end results was that they eventually ended up in open (read:hostile) confrontation with some of the locals, (a very ugly scene) sold the newspaper, and the group disbanded - many members (if not all?) moved away.
It was a black mark on the area for a long time, in my eyes - but it shows how some small towns can be. Change in itself isn't necessarily seen as a bad thing - but outsiders coming in and trying to change things from the outside (not working with the population) will backfire on you.
I think several families who are PO aware, choosing a town to move to, and becoming a "part" of that community would have far better results - in acceptance, less resistance by the locals, and in educating the locals. Once they know you, and that your intentions are good, they'll probably even help you. Of course there will always be those who don't believe you - but that's everywhere.
Trying to "take over" a town will pit you, in many instances, against families whose ancestors settled the place generations ago - and no matter what you do, if those folks aren't with you, neither will the town be. They'll be as opposed to YOU (collective you - not you personally) coming in and "taking over" as they would be any foreign power. I grew up in this area, and am talking from experience.
The idea is sound, although implementation would offer some obstacles.
I do oppose the entire concept of time dollars.
The legal structure for the operating arm of the group would best be done, in the US at least, with an S-Corporation. This allows a maximum of 200 shareholders (read: families), all shareholders must be US citizens, no aliens or corporate entity shareholders, some more minor mumbojumbo.
Such a group would have several advantages if properly organized.
The corporation buys the tools, vehicles, equipment, community structures.
The individuals buy the property and are on their own for housing, personal transportation, income generation.
Typically, homesteading is equipment inefficient. 50 farms need 50 tractors, 1 for each farm. Why not have everyone chip in and collectively purchase the equipment. This is the realm of the corporation.
An example of a method of the corporation serving a function is equipment and tool rental, and operating commercial enterprises. Shareholders of the corporation have the option of renting, for example, a rototiller from the company store for the nominal fee of a dollar a day (gotta keep it legal). Non-shareholders may do so as well, at market price.
The shareholder uses the tiller to create a raised garden bed. He goes back to the company store, buys his seeds, plants them in the ground, raises them, harvest them, sells his surplus, if in acceptable quality, back to the company store.
I've done some thinking about how to operate a small community as far as commerce, and one conclusion I've come up with is a country store. Goods can be marketed, either through dircet sales or by consignment.
The store acts as a warehouse, recieving and distribution point for a buyers group. Buy stuff in bulk, sell them to members at cost, sell to non-members for a fair market price. This buyers group is not limited to only company shareholders. Locals are allowed, even encouraged to join the buyers group. Members would certainly patronize the store.
Most people need a vehicle to get from place to place. No everyone needs a cargo trailer or a truck all the time. Vehicle and trailer rental is a viable option, again at member and non-member rates.
The store carries many items on its shelves particularly useful for the members of the buyers group.
Canned foods, canning jars, lids, equipment.
Dry goods, storage containers, bulk flour, sugar, salt, spices, legumes
Frozen foods, refrigerated products, dairy (not everyone will be raising cows)
How about a diner/coffee shop/pizza-subs. Makes for a good meeting place.
Not all goods would be discounted for members. Some items would be priced the same for all, the coffee shop being a prime example.
lawn and garden supplies: compost, seeds, seedlings, fertilizer, hand tools
Real Estate rental. The company buys land, rents out garden plots and greenhouse space to any and all comers.
For those with less means, mobile home lots.
Tool and equipment rental
lawn and garden tools, tractor, lawn mowers, ditch digger, tiller
industrial tools: welder, cherry picker, light duty crane
Maintenance tools: ladder, painting equipment, roofing tools, saws, compressors, nail guns, hand tools, scaffolding
Transportation and cargo: truck, trailer, how about a multi passenger van
Tools and equipment are serviced and maintained in the back.
Not everyone needs a chainsaw. Those who do don't need it all the time.. Have one available to rent. If demand warrants, get another chainsaw or whatever tool is in high demand.
The concept is simple. I could pay $200 for a decent chainsaw, so can 50 other people. I can use my own chainsaw anytime I like. It makes better sense to pay $25-$50/month and I have access to that chainsaw, a truck, a rototiller, a pressure canner, a 16 foot ladder, a log splitter, a chipper, dithcdigger, a sausage machine, scaffolding, a library, a greenhouse, a garden plot, a lawn mower, an air compressor, an auto shop, a woodshop, you get the idea.
The people function and go about their lives as usual. Some do woodwork, some make quilts, some make pottery. This guy over here grows hay, that guy over there cuts and dries firewood, someone else makes picnic tables. Add these to the store on consignment. The store has no investment in the item. When the item sells, the producer gets paid, the store keeps a percentage, say 10%. This expands the inventory of the store with the investment made by the members of the group and the local community.
Lets say you have 10 people in the group looking for solar panels. Buying collectively, they can get the panels for a better price than simply buying them on their own. Move the purchase through the store.
The store itself will need staff. The sales volume of the store will dictate the precise needs. The labor available is from the local cummunity and the group itself. I would expect less theft if the members staffed the store, but inclusion of locals promotes PR.
The corporation sells its shares, generating investment capital for the establishment of the store, inital inventory and equipment. It makes a profit, which is distributed to the shareholders. There is nothing stopping the corporation from expanding its holdings. More land gets more garden plot rentals. Maybe expand to operate a chicken hatchery.
If interest is strong enough, start another corporation. The 2nd corporation can open their own store a few miles away.
Anyone can become a member of the buyers group. There may need to be a nominal fee each month to cover some of the operating costs, especially if the sales volume of the store is not high enough to be self-sufficient. Multiplication is a fine tool. 100 members, all paying a monthly fee of $25 works out to 2500/month. This would be sufficient to rent a building, keep the light on, and hire a low wage employee to keep everyithing in order.
The task at hand is to gather the minimum threshold of members paying the right monthly fee, and functioning in a manner thats gives them a value for their investment.
Consider using the store initially for a CSA. Members of the CSA pay a monthly fee, get a share of the agricultural production of the company farm.
Expand the idea as the situation warrants.
Hire a dentist.
Say the idea takes hold and the membership of the buyers group grows to 500 families. 2 parents, 2 kids, 2000 people. $500/year for each family gets $250k to work with. I don't know what it costs to hire a full time dentist and pay the bills and insurance costs associated with it, but it seems to me that this should be sufficient. With 2000 people, the dentist could see everyone for an hour each year and never hit overtime. I expect he would be busy the first couple of years doing some catchup work. Focusing on preventive care would be the way to go. Just an idea, tear it up.
Using such a store as one of the core elements of your community take over plan may be a step in the right direction. It is a bootstrapping step, but one which allows commerce and trade, and is accessible to the entire community, rather than only The Group.
The store allows people to share resources. It is not communism. It is the free market exploiting an opportunity. The community has a central point to engage in commerce, gather, and an opportunity to save money in the meantime. If the crap hits the fan, the store would have inventory on hand to better support the community, as long as it is not looted outright. In the Long Slow Slippery crap Slide scenario, the store would evolve to be the center of barter. _________________ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
-George Orwell, 1984
Joined: Sep 25, 2004 Posts: 4681 Location: Boston, MA
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:58 pm Post subject:
Sounds good, but...
Buying all of that stuff takes money. Most of us don't have enough money to join this corporation in the first place. It would require a big fee at the begining.
Secondly, we don't know how to make our own tractors and other complicated machinary. We couldn't get parts from China or wherever they make them. As our machines fell apart, output would collapse. Hunger and poverty would set in over the whole community.
Also, would a group of people like that be a net positive in terms of stuff produced? If not, don't bother. A community like that could not handle money being sucked out of it.
Would enough people of varied positions join? If not, don't bother. All farmers who can barely support themselves is not an ideal situtation. Machines would break down. Disease would spread.
Would we have any way of getting more metal? Every time we broke something that couldn't be fixed or lost a piece, it would lead us closer to collapse. The only reason people survived in the Mid West was because of the factories in the East. They made the tools that the farmers used. Without that supply line, farming alone would not keep them going.
Hunting/husbandry will have to be a large part of the food intake for any group of people. Too many people in too small a piece of land will cause a food shortage. Too few people causes the problems I mentioned earlier. I don't think a corporation is the right way to go.
Buying all of that stuff takes money. Most of us don't have enough money to join this corporation in the first place. It would require a big fee at the begining.
Those with the money, and the desire to invest, are free to do so. It does require a capital investment. This is why the shares are sold to the investors.
Quote:
Secondly, we don't know how to make our own tractors and other complicated machinary. We couldn't get parts from China or wherever they make them. As our machines fell apart, output would collapse. Hunger and poverty would set in over the whole community.
I don't know of many stores that make their own tractors now. You are correct that parts may become unavailable, as well as fuel for operation. Use the machines initially to prepare the land, double dig the raised beds, install irrigation lines, septic systems, dig basements or storm cellars, raise roof trusses. Once the hard work is done, the need for the larger machines disappears, the large machines could perhaps be sold off. The point of the matter is rather than 100 people buying 100 machines, only a handfull of machines are needed. The machines help to construct the systems and structures. Once the systems and structures are in place, production is independent of the machines.
Quote:
Also, would a group of people like that be a net positive in terms of stuff produced?
Everyone has their own particular area of interest. One family makes soap. Another raises rabbits. another does leatherwork. One lady makes clothing. The guy over the hill is a fence builder. The guy out back is a mechanic. That lady is a nurse. Fellow along the river makes candles. The one over there is a contractor, This one is a plumber, theres an electrician living with him and a baker next door. The specialized economy we live in gives us the people with the skills needed to do all the jobs needed to build a civilization. We draw from that. We also learn to do many things ourselves.
Quote:
A community like that could not handle money being sucked out of it.
You missed the point. The shareholders are part of the community. The money stays in the community and is reinvested within the community. There is a strong incentive for the shareholders to continue to reinvest in the local community.
Quote:
Would enough people of varied positions join? If not, don't bother.
Can't win, why try? Easy with the negative vibes. Again you missed the boat. The community is already in place in patrickjfords plan. The corporation idea is simply the means of organizing the finances of the newcomers for greater efficiency.
Quote:
All farmers who can barely support themselves is not an ideal situtation.
Unsustainable industrial society is also not an ideal situation. Besides, not everyone who is involved will be farmers. Many will be involved with growing some portion of food on their own land, but for certain gainfull employment will continue as long as possible. The organizing corporation, tool sharing plan, collective buying, local market simply makes it easier for the community to support themselves doing what they do best. Where did the concepot of them barely supporting themselves come in? You need to think more positively.
Quote:
Machines would break down. Disease would spread.
Huh?
Quote:
Would we have any way of getting more metal? Every time we broke something that couldn't be fixed or lost a piece, it would lead us closer to collapse.
This is true regardless of whether you are involved in the community or not, or whatever community you end up in. The point is moot.
Quote:
Too many people in too small a piece of land will cause a food shortage. Too few people causes the problems I mentioned earlier.
In patrickjfords plan the group of new settlers moves into a rural community, not onto a 5 acre plot all living in a bunkhouse. The existing community is ernhanced with the addition of fresh ideas, new people and a boost to the economy. The fact that the newcomers would be informed about the peak oil situation means there will be similar preparations being made by these newcomers, whose ideas will spread throughout the town. Food production capacity would be a primary objective. Your statement is accurate, but irrelevant.
Quote:
I don't think a corporation is the right way to go.
I would recommend you do not invest in such a corporation. If you have any ideas on how to most effectively utilize limited financial resources, promote commerce, offer opportunity to productive people, offer incentive for reinvesting in the local community, minimize excessive redundancy, and do it under the current legal system, I'm all ears. _________________ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
-George Orwell, 1984
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Send in the third wave of new residents. This wave should be larger than the first two and combined with the first two, and along with any local converts, should begin to tip the political balance. The third wave ideally will be composed of individuals and families with specific trades not yet present in the town, but should economic conditions worsen and render some members of the planning group unemployed sooner than expected, these folks can comprise some of the incoming residents. Ideally by the time of the third wave occurs, the newcomers should now comprise close to 50% of the electorate. Maybe not a majority, but a significant group. Prior to this group’s arrival, the preceding two waves need to have gotten some of the residences ready for inhabitation, work positions readied and excess food stored for new arrivals. Saved money by the group can also aid in transition costs.
