Re: Aspieville?

[Guest guest]

> I can never understand why people don't simply choose

> the simplest solutions there is instead of createing systams that

> are set up to cause stress and discontent.

That states the problem of collective democratic societies.

There is a tendency to create regulation for regulation's sake,

and to regulate to control people.

There are a number of ways to avoid this. One technique is

establishing a " basic by-law " . (A " by-law " is a rule set up by

a non-governmental organization. It is not a " law " because they

ain't the gub'ment!) Any regulation must fall under the

restrictions of the " basic by-law " . The members are unlikely to

overturn the " basic by-law " because they understand the

significance. Any general rule must fit within the requirements

of the " basic by-law " . These " basic by-laws " can be established

to require a super-majority vote for repeal or amendment.

( " Basic by-laws " are usually described by a variety of other

names.)

A second approach is through organizational structure.

Competition and organizational structure often relieve the bias

toward self-oppression. If the cooperative is the part of a

larger movement or group, it can have governing body for the

movement. The governing body arranges financing, collective

activities of the movement and significantly address issues of

retaining people in the movement and social issues.

Another approach is through physical infrastructure. Inger's

example of the cooperative apartments built in Sweden in the

'30s is significant. If the building has common areas which are

inviting, people will use them. IMO, this should not exclude

similar functions, such as kitchens, laundrys, in the private

units.

So a community may have an " area to work on cars " . People can

work on their cars in their own space, but in the common area,

there is some ability to obtain help from others or use some

equipment. There could be a few large washing machines, so

someone could wash rugs in the common area. Cooking for 22 or

your closest friends can be done in a common kitchen between

" pot luck " dinners that someone else arranges every Thursday

night. More common examples are common exercise and swimming

facilities common to most large multifamily housing complexes.

Most purpose-built intentional communities include common areas.

I'm not sure if they attempt to limit comparable facilities in

the private units.

Common areas also go to the " burdensome control " aspect. I

don't think it's a good idea to limit the private facilities for

the purpose of " forcing " the common facilities down the throats

of the residents. The only " forcing " should be such things as

designing lobbies so that there is a natural tendency to have a

community. The difference is one of encouragement by design as

opposed to coercion by design.

- s