# Cult Compound 2.0



## AnOldHope (Jan 4, 2017)

I was watching the documentary "Holy Hell" about the Buddhafield group in California, for twenty years they believed this guy was a messenger from God, they devoted their lives to him, turned out he was an out of work gay porn actor from Brazil named Jaime Gomez. 

But it all only really goes to shit midway through the movie when all the squirrely shit he was doing to his followers emerged. Before that, they were really happy. 

Cults tend to be defined by their leader, but of course once that leader has such absolute power over his followers, assholery inevitably ensues. 

So I've decided to reboot the cult idea with some improvements:

1.) The leader doesn't get unquestioning authority over followers and their lives. He/she can ask them to leave the cult's place if he/she thinks they're fucking things up and it's damaging the group, but the leader can't tell you who to marry, what to think, what to believe, or anything else. The most they can do is make you leave the cult if you're causing problems. 

2.) The leader doesn't ask for or get money from the followers. People chip in for gas if they want to ride into town in the cult leader's truck from the cult's off-grid camp on private property. Instead of paying the cult, cult members spend their money to survive better, saving for a vehicle, trailer, some solar power, whatever. Members come and go as they please. If/when they leave the cult, they take their stuff with them. 

3.) Instead of working in some cult-owned business to make money for the cult leader, the members raise goats and chickens for milk, meat, and eggs. If everyone wants to pitch in for rice, pastas, other bulk foods and prepare group meals, we work out who knows how to make what, we give it a try, and people vote with their stomachs. At this stage, the High Chef of the Cult (whoever makes the best food) is a powerful member of the cult in their own right. Individual members can certainly buy and prepare their own food, but are welcome to a share of the goats and chickens as long as they're helping with the animals.

3.5) The Heaven's Gate people made decent money doing web design, but they killed themselves and Cult 2.0 doesn't do that (see rule 4). So the True God has revealed to me the radical alternative plan of having internet on the compound so members can study technology (operating systems, programming, remote network management, whatever clicks in your head that you want to spend the time to get good at), and then once the member is making money, they live and enjoy their money instead of eating a lethal dose of drugs mixed in applesauce. 

4.) No suicides, no spaceships are coming. We will store food and water because humans need those things. We don't anticipate an Apocalypse, but if it comes, we will be able to help ourselves and those in need. 

4.5) No homicides, no violence, no aggression against other members. Everybody gets their own shitty rv/trailer, whatever, and if there's friction, the cult leader defuses it (any refusing to be defused will be ejected from the Cult's place). 

5.) We aren't looking to fight the government, the illuminati, or the reptilians from Alpha Draconis. We're looking to live very inexpensively and simply, and express the Highest Love: Don't fuck with yourself or anybody else.

6.) We do not withhold the higher teachings of the cult from new members, nor require payment or lengthy membership to see our "True" teachings. We have knowledge of the True Name of God, and we will tell you on the first day. It's "Ronald". 

7.) Gatherings will be held on Holy Days (when the weather is good and people feel like getting together) and sermons will take the form of Sacred Imagery (we'll vote on the movie).

Would this work?


----------



## Kim Chee (Jan 4, 2017)

Cults have worse reputations than churches without the added benefit of tax exempt status.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 4, 2017)

Kim Chee said:


> Cults have worse reputations than churches without the added benefit of tax exempt status.



I think the people I'd be looking for aren't too worried about reputation, and since it would be Cult 2.0, there wouldn't be any huge need to bring in more followers, more money, or whatever for the leader. People join if it works for them. 

Also, even if a group is classified as a "cult" by whatever designator, if it pursues spiritual beliefs I believe it incurs similar tax status to a Church. However, since this enterprise would not likely result in income for the Cult leader (individuals keep whatever income they have), taxation isn't really a big concern since there is no cult-accrued income to tax.


----------



## Billy Cougar White (Jan 4, 2017)

What you have described sounds more like commune then a cult.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 4, 2017)

Billy Cougar White said:


> What you have described sounds more like commune then a cult.



I suppose so, but we'd be different in that we'd have sacred profound teachings to buttress group cohesion, perhaps hats or robes of some kind for ceremonies. 

Hats would have to be optional, I know some people just aren't hat people.


----------



## Applelatchun (Jan 5, 2017)

Just watched an episode last night of "Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath." The Scientology Church is tax-exempt. Their leader is worth 50 million.


----------



## Deleted member 125 (Jan 5, 2017)

Is this a pitch at starting a cult? Dude...you gotta have more confidence then this if you want to make it.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 5, 2017)

cantcureherpes said:


> Is this a pitch at starting a cult? Dude...you gotta have more confidence then this if you want to make it.



The "confident" cult leader is the basis of the previous iterations of cults, this is "Cult 2.0". While confidence naturally attracts those who need confidence in their cult leaders, the dynamic here is less reliant on that. 

By contrast its intended towards people who don't really need a confident cult leader to run their lives, but rather have their own confidence (and more specifically find that the situation with in the Cult 2.0 is beneficial to their specific needs, thus sourcing their membership from fair gain for themselves and others, rather than for the benefit of the confident cult leader). 

Since there is no need for gain for the cult leader, there is no need to "make it". 

Those who would gravitate to this premise wouldn't really need someone else's confidence, but rather analytically find that localized human collaboration (while preserving individual freedom, control of their own lives, their own place in the compound, etc.) gives them the amplified power of human cooperation without undue subordination of their personal autonomy. They have their own confidence, they don't need it from somebody else.

How many of such people there are remains to be seen, of course.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 5, 2017)

Applelatchun said:


> Just watched an episode last night of "Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath." The Scientology Church is tax-exempt. Their leader is worth 50 million.



Yeah, Hubbard specifically told them early on that the goal was to make money, and they did it. Harmed a lot of lives. 

Fortunately, the tax element is less of an issue here, as the associated taxes would mostly limited to the property taxes, which in the case at hand are less than $30/year and would not be exempted under religious use anyway.


----------



## Kim Chee (Jan 5, 2017)

I can use a leader.

What are you offering that I can't do for myself?


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 5, 2017)

Kim Chee said:


> I can use a leader.
> 
> What are you offering that I can't do for myself?



I don't know because I don't know what you can do for yourself. Is there anything you're having trouble doing on your own (or with a pre-existing group context you already have access to, for goals that require combined effort)? 

You mention you can use a leader, what do you need to use them for? 

I guess a lot of it depends on your individual goals and skillset. What is it you're having trouble with? 

For a project like this, its generally those who want a small place where they don't have to have a roommate, aren't paying rent, like working with animals, get most of their entertainment on line or through reading/films/art/games, and want to live that way. Some have the ability to put this together on their own, some need the economies of scale of a group to do it.


----------



## Kim Chee (Jan 5, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> Fortunately, the tax element is less of an issue here, as the associated taxes would mostly limited to the property taxes, which in the case at hand are less than $30/year and would not be exempted under religious use anyway.



Small amount aside, my source indicates that churches are exempt from paying property taxes in 50 states: http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

What source are you getting your information from?

Or, did you just pull that fact from your butt?


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 5, 2017)

Kim Chee said:


> Small amount aside, my source indicates that churches are exempt from paying property taxes in 50 states: http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/
> 
> What source are you getting your information from?
> 
> Or, did you just pull that fact from your butt?



Because the location would not be solely for religious use and would serve as principle residence for the owner, so there would be property tax associated with that. My information comes from an Enrolled Agent who handles my tax issues. I believe your sources speaks specifically to structure as house of worship, whereas residences of members are still taxable much as the personal income of a priest would be taxable. 

You seem hostile, I'd like to better understand why.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 5, 2017)

Billy Cougar White said:


> What you have described sounds more like commune then a cult.



There is definitely some overlap, and communal living (but with separate trailers/rvs/whatever, so people have their own space) without rent is part of the spiritual practice. 

I'm seeing some mini-dome houses designed by some guy in Alaska that look good for the housing, but a little pricey at $6k a piece. Used trailers/RV's can usually be found in the Southwest for $500 to $1500. I'm thinking we could put up four foot goat fence around each person's monastic retreat (shitty trailer) so if they have a pet, and/or want to grow some stuff (water is limited in the area, but as long as we don't wind up with more than 7 or so people, there's room on the property for enough rain catchers to water individual gardens, which if successful could have its excess traded to others in the community, the organic byproducts given to the goats, etc).

So yes, I suppose Cult 2.0 does incorporate communal living, while preserving sufficient privacy so as not to regress to Cult 1.0 practices of conditioning, control, isolation, etc.


----------



## Kim Chee (Jan 5, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> You seem hostile, I'd like to better understand why.



Pardon me, I misunderstood your earlier post.

My skepticism is probably easily mistaken for hostility on the Internet


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 5, 2017)

Kim Chee said:


> Pardon me, I misunderstood your earlier post.
> 
> My skepticism is probably easily mistaken for hostility on the Internet



Well, given the context here and the spectrum of situations you have coming through, I can see where skepticism would have some value.


----------



## Billy Cougar White (Jan 5, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> There is definitely some overlap, and communal living (but with separate trailers/rvs/whatever, so people have their own space) without rent is part of the spiritual practice.
> 
> I'm seeing some mini-dome houses designed by some guy in Alaska that look good for the housing, but a little pricey at $6k a piece. Used trailers/RV's can usually be found in the Southwest for $500 to $1500. I'm thinking we could put up four foot goat fence around each person's monastic retreat (shitty trailer) so if they have a pet, and/or want to grow some stuff (water is limited in the area, but as long as we don't wind up with more than 7 or so people, there's room on the property for enough rain catchers to water individual gardens, which if successful could have its excess traded to others in the community, the organic byproducts given to the goats, etc).
> 
> So yes, I suppose Cult 2.0 does incorporate communal living, while preserving sufficient privacy so as not to regress to Cult 1.0 practices of conditioning, control, isolation, etc.


This actually sounds fairly practical.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 5, 2017)

Billy Cougar White said:


> This actually sounds fairly practical.



I admit the logistics are challenging, particularly in the summer heat in the southwest. For my own setup I use USB fans powered by solar, but I have 800 watts. For half a dozen people, it may require more than double that to provide enough that everyone could have fans in their trailer, which they would need at minimum. 

The water hauling is also an issue, I use 3 gallons a day (which includes one for my dog), but I understand others may need more than that. 

The other problem may be that for those without there own vehicle, the isolation may be problematic if they can't engage their needs for interaction on the internet or the micro community. Some people need to be in town out among people, especially if they make money busking or whatever. I don't really currently have a good way around that.


----------



## kriminalmisfit (Jan 5, 2017)

I don't get it.. You basically said you want to change a cult into the opposite of a cult.. Sounds like a commune to me.


----------



## kriminalmisfit (Jan 5, 2017)

Didn't mean for that to sound so mean. Sorry man!


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 5, 2017)

It wasn't really mean, no sorry needed. You make a good point, looking at the structure of it, it is more of a commune than a cult (especially in that part of how I tried to define the idea was by rejection of the normal quote criteria). I guess it was because the idea took some inspiration from a documentary about cults I was watching.

The thing is, I still want to keep that elation, the group harmony, the focus, the unified purpose, and what really looked like a heartfelt happiness....just without the sex abuse, control, financial abuse of people who need help, etc that can go with cults.


----------



## Billy Cougar White (Jan 5, 2017)

That is exactly what a commune is.....if you want an example of a successful one look up "total loss farm" they started their commune in the early 60s, and it is still going now


----------



## Billy Cougar White (Jan 5, 2017)

Billy Cougar White said:


> That is exactly what a commune is.....if you want an example of a successful one look up "total loss farm" they started their commune in the early 60s, and it is still going now


There's a book about it called "home cooking-life on total loss farm"


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 5, 2017)

Billy Cougar White said:


> That is exactly what a commune is.....if you want an example of a successful one look up "total loss farm" they started their commune in the early 60s, and it is still going now



Googling now. I love the name "Total Loss Farm", especially if they had to put it on insurance applications or loan documents. The name alone is awesome.


----------



## Multifaceted (Jan 6, 2017)

Many communes have a common focus they use for mission and happiness. There are actually lists of communes online (simply google search will find them) that list where they are, what they're about, how high end their plumbing and what not is, etc..  I promise you - communes are exactly what you're thinking of!


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 6, 2017)

Multifaceted said:


> Many communes have a common focus they use for mission and happiness. There are actually lists of communes online (simply google search will find them) that list where they are, what they're about, how high end their plumbing and what not is, etc..  I promise you - communes are exactly what you're thinking of!



I looked up about 18 in Arizona.

Yikes, quite a few of these want money, from $300 or more for a roomshare to $150 a month just to be on the property. I can understand why, they put that money into established structures and more power, plumbing, etc, for the community, so for those looking to pay in for better infrastructure, I can see how that model would work for them.

I'd like to create a place where people don't have to pay in a rent or fee and can direct their money to improving their own lives (vehicle, better trailer, solar panes, etc that they can take with them if they leave), of course the price of that being I have to find other solutions for the structures (likely RV/trailers) and power/water infrastructure.

Water I can handle by hauling if each trailer has an adjunct 250 gallon water tank and people can live with camping-style levels of water usage (5 gallon solar showers, etc). Fuel and hauling for one person would work out to about a dollar a day.

The current array can keep the wifi connection up. 3x USB fans per trailer would probably take 2 x100 watts and 125 amp hour deep cycle battery. That could run $500 with an inverter, but I could share the main array with them until they have enough for their own.

The communes in this area, being more established with structure and utilities, are a great option for people who have a way to pay into that, some offer limited work share.

If I take a year a build up the array and a better water system, I may be ready to host as guests those who want a communal lifestyle but not the associated fees to the community.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 6, 2017)

Looks like the only commune in Northern Arizona I can find active uses "rental/purchase" for its housing situation. I wonder if there's room for one that does "you just live here and study with the group, helping with the animals and water hauls etc" kind of thing.


----------



## Multifaceted (Jan 6, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> 2.) The leader doesn't ask for or get money from the followers. People chip in for gas if they want to ride into town in the cult leader's truck from the cult's off-grid camp on private property. Instead of paying the cult, cult members spend their money to survive better, saving for a vehicle, trailer, some solar power, whatever. Members come and go as they please. If/when they leave the cult, they take their stuff with them.



Saving for a vehicle? Where would the money be coming from to enable saving? There are communes in the US that don't charge you to live with them, but they do expect you to work in the communal business because without people paying to live there they need to pull their weight another way- often times a business that is run strictly by the commune that produces goods to sell to the outside world.



AnOldHope said:


> So yes, I suppose Cult 2.0 does incorporate communal living, while preserving sufficient privacy so as not to regress to Cult 1.0 practices of conditioning, control, isolation, etc.



Communes are not cults so there is no regression. Some communes have more communal living, and some have more private living spaces but the ones with private living spaces often will charge. You're basically paying for a spot on their land, which, even if the land is paid off, they still have to pay taxes on it to pay for.


----------



## Multifaceted (Jan 6, 2017)

Are you looking for one to join or are you looking to make one? I'm a little confused about that part.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 6, 2017)

Multifaceted said:


> Saving for a vehicle? Where would the money be coming from to enable saving? There are communes in the US that don't charge you to live with them, but they do expect you to work in the communal business because without people paying to live there they need to pull their weight another way- often times a business that is run strictly by the commune that produces goods to sell to the outside world.
> 
> 
> 
> Communes are not cults so there is no regression. Some communes have more communal living, and some have more private living spaces but the ones with private living spaces often will charge. You're basically paying for a spot on their land, which, even if the land is paid off, they still have to pay taxes on it to pay for.



The ones I'm locating this area are charging fees, the only one in this part of the state even has HOA fees. I don't doubt there are some that don't require a cash pay-in but they aren't in this area.

As for a communal business, I suppose excess goat milk could be sold, etc, but I think online work would be the best chance since I have internet already. However, requiring those present to work in the business and give money over to the community is in the opposite direction that I want to go, and I don't want everyone to have to do the same work. Whatever they make online (or have passive income from retirement/ssdi/workers comp/military whatever would be there's to do as they please (minus chipping in for gas for water runs, I suppose) which could include a vehicle if they want. 

The property taxes are negligible for my land, so I wouldn't have to require a pay in for that.

The regression I was describing was from a "Cult 2.0" standpoint back to a conventional cult, not in relation to a commune. However, I'm seeing the difference between a commune and what I want to do, in that the commune models I'm seeing in the area all charge a fee, and if I'm understanding you, the ones that don't require a fee require you to work at a commune job and pay those earnings into the community, which is basically the same as a fee. 

I really think something different may be possible, without the fees or working at a business that essentially takes part of your earnings as a fee.

A place where you keep your money (online work/ssdi/retirement/military/whatever) and use it as you see fit, but by living with others in a minimalist style, the living expenses are reduced such that nobody has to pay in or work in a required business. 

Since there are no communes here that don't charge (which necessarily requires you'd have some money coming in), I'd like to develop a place that doesn't charge (and whatever money you have coming in you can use your a vehicle or whatever per the options above).

Logically, if one has no source of money to save for a vehicle, one would have no source of money to the pay the commune rents/fees, etc required in this area. So the differences is, for those who have a source of money (I think online work is going to be the best bet) they use it to improve their own lives in a way that stays with them if they leave the group instead of having to pay in fees every month, which are in practice no different than rent.


----------



## Multifaceted (Jan 6, 2017)

AnOldHope said:


> However, requiring those present to work in the business and give money over to the community is in the opposite direction that I want to go, and I don't want everyone to have to do the same work



You don't make the money- the commune makes the money. Your work is your rent.. People generally don't go to communes to live with the intent of earning money. They live in communes so as to be a part of a community that doesn't focus primarily on money, but moreso work and spirituality.

Honestly, it seems like you want too much. 



AnOldHope said:


> A place where you keep your money (online work/ssdi/retirement/military/whatever) and use it as you see fit, but by living with others in a minimalist style, the living expenses are reduced such that nobody has to pay in or work in a required business.



If no one is paying into it and no one is working a job that brings the commune money... where is the money coming from to make living expenses reduced? Living off the government in a commune is... kind of hypocritical in my opinion. Communes are about sustenance. That's why there has to be a communal business- to sustain the individuals.

It sounds to me like you just want a free place for people to park their RV's and talk to each other now and again.

I'm sorry man, but I see a lot of flaws in what you're looking for.

Perhaps you should read the posts on Slab City, though you'll still find you have to pull your weight with them as well in the form of helping out.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 6, 2017)

Multifaceted said:


> Are you looking for one to join or are you looking to make one? I'm a little confused about that part.



Well, it depends on what "one" is. My vision is a place, a refuge, where people can stay without having to pay rent, have shelter, food, water, and network access, and are not required to work in a business where a portion of the earnings go to someone else (aside from income taxes, of course, but at the earnings levels here, that will likely be limited to self-employment taxes). 

Rather than a collective business selling to the outside world, efforts would go into raising onsite animals for largely onsite consumption. I can provide fencing, pen material, vet visits, food supplements (goats do very well out here and there is adjacent open range land where they can browse, but for the animals to be healthy they'll need some feed-store bought stuff), if people present want to share in the goat mlik/meat and chicken eggs, they help take care of the animals, but they aren't required to if they don't want those things. 

So, similar to the commune in benefiting from a group living location, but without the micro-controlled economics.

This would likely not work for most people, but for those who would think "Okay, shitty/rv or trailer to live in, network access for internet, and I can help take care of the animals if I want some of that food, but I don't have to pay fees" it may work for a small few. If there's 300 million people in the US, it seems there could be half a dozen that this would work for.


----------



## Multifaceted (Jan 6, 2017)

Basically an apartment land (lol) where people just come and live separate lives next to each other..?

Where is your land? Is it located close to or in a town? People living on your land will need to commute every day to regular society to work at McDonald's.. Is the commute far?

I think we're misunderstanding each other on a few things so I'm going to turn this over to whomever wants to be next to reply.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 6, 2017)

Multifaceted said:


> You don't make the money- the commune makes the money. Your work is your rent.. People generally don't go to communes to live with the intent of earning money. They live in communes so as to be a part of a community that doesn't focus primarily on money, but moreso work and spirituality.
> 
> Honestly, it seems like you want too much.
> 
> ...



Saying "you don't make the money- the commune makes the money" when you're doing the work that makes the money illustrates the point. If your work is your rent, then it defeats the purpose.

I believe you when you describe what people in communes you want, which I think further illustrates that what I want to create would be distinct from a commune. It may well be too much, it depends on whether there are people who want something different than a commune.

Calling retirement/ssdi/workers comp/military as "living off the government" seems a bit unfair to me. I paid quite a bit into ssdi before I went on it, and now that I'm able to work again, I've paid back more than what I put in. Many people on ssdi (or retirement, other disability, or military,etc) worked very hard to earn those benefits, and I don't consider it wrong to live off them. But if you consider that "living off the government", why is it less so if they pay a landlord or some abusive roommate on craigslist that knows that you can't get your own place showing $800 a month ssdi? Does that make it any better?

Under this model, they use that money for a vehicle, their own RV, whatever, improving their lives and reducing their burden for support services. If a disabled person came to a commune and wanted to pay the $125-$300 a month with their disability, would they be hypocrites? Its okay to pay it into a commune, but not live in a place where they can keep it for themselves?

If someone on retirement wanted to do the same, its not wrong for them to have to pay it to the commune, but its hypocrisy if they are allowed to keep it for themselves?

I don't think its asking too much. For the people who would need this, its asking less.

I'm familiar with slab city, I've found some of their techniques may be useful, but the open entrance makes it a very different model.

If viewed solely and intractably from the superimposed limitations of a commune model, it is very flawed. If viewed as something different, its different.

What would be so wrong with people living together in RV's with internet access provided, group trips to haul water and get supplies, group animals for food, etc, living and talking together...and you don't have to pay in or work in their business?


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 6, 2017)

Multifaceted said:


> Basically an apartment land (lol) where people just come and live separate lives next to each other..?
> 
> Where is your land? Is it located close to or in a town? People living on your land will need to commute every day to regular society to work at McDonald's.. Is the commute far?
> 
> I think we're misunderstanding each other on a few things so I'm going to turn this over to whomever wants to be next to reply.



I'm sorry, I should have explained better in the original post. This is not for conventional living or working at McDonalds. This is a place where people could live without paying in. If they can work online or have some passive income that is insufficient for a conventional lifestyle, they could live here. 

The water hauling numbers are about $1 a day, and if the group or subgroups want to prepare communal meals, food could be down to $5/day or less if they choose to help with the animals. There is no rent, internet is free. 

So, for less than the communes in this area want for a fee (or to have you work and they take from the earnings for the fee), people could survive and coexist on very little. 

The communes in this area don't do that, and from what you are describing, communes are different in a few ways than what I'm looking for. 

This is just a place for people to live safely on almost no money, while having internet access. I don't think its impossible, it just not as a commune as you describe them. That doesn't mean it couldn't exist.


----------



## Billy Cougar White (Jan 6, 2017)

If people do not help out with the commune "business" how do you plan to buy grain, pet feed, farming supplies,food you can't make, etc etc. In order for a commune to work, all members must work together for common goals, and any activity that is in the best interest of the commune. You have some decent ideas, so don't get discouraged. But pay attention to what you learn. Some communes allow visitors to stay and live the life for a couple night. I would suggest you try that. It may adjust your perspective.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 6, 2017)

Billy Cougar White said:


> If people do not help out with the commune "business" how do you plan to buy grain, pet feed, farming supplies,food you can't make, etc etc. In order for a commune to work, all members must work together for common goals, and any activity that is in the best interest of the commune. You have some decent ideas, so don't get discouraged. But pay attention to what you learn. Some communes allow visitors to stay and live the life for a couple night. I would suggest you try that. It may adjust your perspective.



Since I own the land and RV outright, I have no rent or expenses. Moving to my land saved me $1,200 a month just in rent and utilities that are now handled by solar and water hauling. 

I own my truck outright. Maintaining the internet, truck insurance, etc, has reduced my expenses such that I have more than half my gross available to purchases pet feed, replace solar panels, etc. 

Essentially, I will provide.

I hope my questions don't somehow portray as discouragement. It seems many are very fixated on the commune model, and I can see how at surface and absent details, there does appear to be similarities to what I'm describing to a commune in the group living efficiencies.

However, not all people living together are a commune, and from the parameters and goals I'm hearing described about a commune and what that requires to be a commune, what I'm doing wouldn't really be a commune.

Are there models that exist (or could exist) of people living together that are not forced into the commune model? Could there be?


----------



## todd (Jan 6, 2017)

it all comes down to capital . the way your describing, you already own the land so no cost there. you've already paid for the internet infrastructure. so those historical costs are mute as your not asking to be recouped for those. the costs of building or upgrading the water/ food production storage systems will have to come from somewhere. either each to his own or from a central commune *bank* there are attractive aspects to what you describe and some cooperative communities existed in the 20s, 30s and 40s in Mississippi of all places that were very successfully. eventually the racial and gender hatred of the surrounding communities is what destroyed them in that area.
Calling this endeavor a CULT2.0 is misleading due to the overwhelming negative aspects of cults and religion in general. I rather prefer some sort of social experiment or for that matter a low/no cost off grid homestead co-op.


----------



## AnOldHope (Jan 6, 2017)

todd said:


> it all comes down to capital . the way your describing, you already own the land so no cost there. you've already paid for the internet infrastructure. so those historical costs are mute as your not asking to be recouped for those. the costs of building or upgrading the water/ food production storage systems will have to come from somewhere. either each to his own or from a central commune *bank* there are attractive aspects to what you describe and some cooperative communities existed in the 20s, 30s and 40s in Mississippi of all places that were very successfully. eventually the racial and gender hatred of the surrounding communities is what destroyed them in that area.
> Calling this endeavor a CULT2.0 is misleading due to the overwhelming negative aspects of cults and religion in general. I rather prefer some sort of social experiment or for that matter a low/no cost off grid homestead co-op.



I think the water infrastructure cost will be the hauling, I can get the containers, filters, test kits, so the fuel for the hauling will be the major hit, about $30/month per resident. If they can kick that much in great, if not I can absorb if needed.

As mentioned earlier, I can afford the goats, vet visits, supplemental feed, additional water hauling for the goats (although for the animals, a half acres of rain catchers will cover a lot of it), etc. 

Additional food could be done using communal meals, or if those present have food stamps they can use those (although I recognize some view this as living off the government, I don't personally object to it and my income taxes go to pay for it, so I can accept that some people need that).

Mississipi, I've only driven through. Sad to see they ended that way. 

Overwhelming negative aspects get assigned to a lot of things. Ive got family that consider squatters and travelers to be overwhelmingly negative, and they attach all of that as soon as they hear the word and apply the idea they have in their head. 

The very few I'm looking for will be the ones who can see the idea, and have it be different than what they've already decided it has to be based on other things. 

The progression of this has been very interesting. An idea presented, "oh that's a commune", and when I describe how it may work, "that won't work, that's not a commune!" 

One thing I've learned about this is its definitely not a commune, because I'm hearing a huge amount of baggage that comes with that.

I think "people living for free in RV on some land with internet and non-conventional infrastructure without having to pay into a commune" is a good basic premise, but add to it a central meaningful belief that rejects having to pay in and requiring so many things. 

There are people trying to survive on very little right now in very bad situations, and if the communes were solving that problem, it would be solved. Maybe there are other ideas. This is just the development of one.


----------

