Self-sustaining, democratic communities

The Scottish island of Eigg has recently become 100% self-sustainable. So far over 90% of their energy is from renewable sources. The Island operates completely independently of the UK national power grid.
When the power is at a high level, a green sign is put out to say 'use as much energy as you need' and when it's running low, a red sign is put out to say 'please be responsible with how much you use'. And this works for this island, who use pre-paid energy cards to negate the Admin side of providing power.

What's even better is that the island is completely owned by its residents. Anyone who lives on the island for more than 6 months becomes a member of the resident committee and become part of the collective body that decides how the island should be run.

Obviously to be repeated anywhere else, it would have to be on a much bigger scale; but if every separate community had it's own power, delegates and meetings, would it work?

Is this true democracy? I think so. Reducing everything down to a local level, letting residents run their own community collectively, where everyone has a voice. None of this exporting as much as we import, allowing big corporations to run our Governments, using way too much power at a much bigger cost than it needs to be and all the disenchantment that supposed modern "democracy" entails.

The turbines


The solar panels


The hydro-power system (x3)



The battery room where the three forms of renewable energy are stored


The set-up

 

Direct democracy is at least and improvement. Also I'm in support of succeeding from systems that clearly don't work. But democracy essentially a euphemism for mob rule.

 

Aye, I suppose. Greatest aggregate happiness; throwing Christians to the lions yada yada.

But when reduced down to small communities, I think it's less exclusive. At least a bit. Since there isn't a way to keep everyone happy all the time.

 

Not entirely sure what you're saying there. Democracy as a system doesn't necessarily = greatest happiness.

Hey, if people want to voluntarily move to and island and participate in a certain system I have no problem with that. As long as they're free to leave etc etc.

Not that I think a "green" focused democratic system is very appealing. I'd just hope they come up with some form of decentralized system to ensure fair play from all sides.

I mean I do see the point of the thread. I think being off the grid and being self sustaining is interesting for sure. I'm with Sythe in terms of I'd like to get the fuck away from whatever psychopath thinks they have legitimate authority to rule over me.

 

What you were saying was similar to the greatest aggregate happiness rule used in moral philosophy. Where throwing Christians to the lions would be seen as okay because more people gain happiness (those watching) than suffer; just like first past the post voting systems and democracy in general

What about a green way of living puts you off?

 

Ahh, alright I understand. I won't go into a critique of utilitarianism but I can see how you'd associate the two now.

"A green way of living" doesn't put me off.

I picked out two major points in your first post.

That it was:

A) A direct democracy which I briefly touched on. It could certainly be an improvement to the current situation but I still don't believe that it is moral/a good system practically speaking.

B) That there was a huge focus on green energy. I see many more disturbing issues to deal with. Legal extortion, murder, people being thrown in cages for victim-less crimes (to name a few). Of course I'm all for limiting damaging the environment as much as possible when practical and necessary but I don't really find their system any more appealing just because they collect energy a certain way.

I'm glad you posted it, it was interesting to read. I just don't consider either of those things to be groundbreaking or something that I'd rush onto a flight to get involved with.

 

Being self-sustained in general would be a massive advantage. Renewable power sourced for that area and distributed to that area, farmed produce and local products serving that area (we import as much as we export in the same goods funded by taxes), schools that are a right and not a buyable entity (we would consider it wrong to say black people go to this school and white people go to this school so why do we say poor people can only go to this school but rich people can go to this school), and so on. If everything was localised and truly democratic then this could be possible.

Self-sustainability has a huge range of topics and issues that it would change - but taking the first step should be fought for, no matter how small it is

 

I agree.

Government.jpg

<rant>

The problem with this is that to make it a "right" (which is isn't) you'd need to aggressively coerce other people to pay for it. Besides, this is hardly an issue in the first world. Reliable internet access is easy to come by, any person has access to millions of hours of education. Second hand text books, etc.

You also factor in that many new outlets of education would come with de-regulation. Currently I'm not "licensed" to run a school, when in fact there are subjects that I'd be considered an expert in that I'd be able to teach. You'd have places competing with each other to provide education at the lowest cost and highest standard possible to bring people in. Obviously verifiable by third party test scores and ratings, etc. You also have scholarships,extended family, religious institutions, etc that could all help with funding.

Just because you don't say "Go to school or your parents will be arrested. You MUST pay for schooling even if you don't have children or you'll be thrown in prison and your property will be seized", doesn't mean that children won't have every opportunity for education.

There is no getting around the fact that education costs money, but the moral and practical answer isn't forcing people with threats to fund something against their will. No matter how beneficial you personally believe it to be.

</rant>

I agree with this part, succeeding and becoming self-sustaining will be important to make a difference. Its just that voluntary association > democracy where others make decisions and then enforce those decisions with guns pointed at you.

 

Saving this spot for when I get home. But tl;dr will be needed.

 

I don't see it working on a larger scale due to someone with bad intent using ''more power'' or siphoning most energy. It could work in smaller, rural communities.

If they developed it more, and had some sort of guideline/securities, I wouldn't mind seeing it spread.

 

@Darkest, here, albeit still run by big companies and corrupt Governments, we have free schools for everyone, all the way up to your degree at the country's top University where Prince William got his degree. If it can be managed this far in one country, it can happen anywhere in the world - the people who say it isn't possible are the ones who benefit from it staying the same Same with Government systems.

 

@Roary, inb4antiauthoritarianfauxlibretarianismshitstorm.

As I have argued before humans are programed as societal animals and no matter how many governments you abolish there will always be some form of government. If it be you and 20 other people in a small community or a country. Darkest and many other libertarian usurpers inspired by Rothbardian principles will always argue that if you provide anything to people by taxes you are coercing them. (The term libertarian has been co-opted by a group of individuals that use it to prop themselves and their corporate interests up, much the same as the term liberal has been taken over by a bunch of whiney people. These individuals want everything de-regulated and want the market to attempt to maintain balance, but a market doesn't function that way on a grand scale. The invisible hand no longer functions the way that Smith described it some 200 years ago.) There are things like roads, schools, transit systems, research, defense, and numerous other fields that are terrible, terrible things. You should only be afforded things that you have money yourself to pay for or that someone else will pay for, but only if they pay for it voluntarily. The whole idea is based on a false sense of freedom, but the facts are that you are a slave to the system trying to better yourself to no end.

The problem with that idea is that it is just that idealistic at the best. The system promotes principles that essentially skew the system towards those that already have the opportunities provided to them. You can go back and look at the Mid-Atlantic Appalachian communities of the 20's and 30's that was based around coal mining for an example. The communities were owned entirely by coal operators from the house you lived in, the clothes you wore, the store you shopped at, and food you had to buy from them. It was then all guarded by armed thugs that would actually coerce you into staying at gun point. You worked your day and would be paid, but then you'd have to buy your food and other needs from the store that was owned by, guess who, the coal operators. This would create a systematic oppression of the workers and they would cyclically remain indebted to the company because there was no other options for you. You had to work. The unions came through and it eventually led to the downfall of the coal operator system, but not after hard fought battles with the company. Many were slain by the company's armed thugs because they were considering unionization. Guess who the law was in these communities? The company. They owned you much like a slave. You couldn't leave because you had no money and were heavily indebted to the company that would be apart of this mob-like community.

The idea that one oppression is better than the other is stupid. Would I rather be oppressed by a republic or would I rather be oppressed by a plutocracy?

/rant

 

I'm not denying that there is no leader or hierarchy in places or systems like this one; but having small, individual communities with their own hierarchy is easier to have your voice heard in than a larger, business run, corrupt, illegal war fighting, capitalist one.

Sure some issues would still have to be nationalised and apply to all, most likely. But some say in what happens around you is better than none. There's no point staying in an unhappy system when there are countless other systems that could work. It would be pretty convenient for those at the top of this one if the one we had was the only one that worked huh?

 

@Roary I agree completely with the need of escaping an unfriendly system, but I am not going to leave a system of oppression to be put into a system of more oppression. I am a fan of the Anarcho-Syndicalist system that Noam Chomsky speaks of a lot. It is the abolition of a traditional government system and the setup of a system that resembles worker unions and involve work stake where the means of non-human production are common property among individuals. Here is a cool article: http://www.uncanny.net/~wetzel/syndicalism.htm

 

Fixed

Aye, from skimming it seems like it makes sense; but you're never going to get from point A to point B in one swoop. As much as I love the idea of a quick, effective revolution, a whole system changing has to be more.. evolution. And these folks have the right idea. Start building your community outside of the current system as much as possible to create a better one.

I don't have an answer or ideal myself; I just know that the one we're in has to change and these kinds of initiatives really remind me that the first steps are the biggest, regardless of whether it's close to the end goal or not, it's better than staying the same and waiting for change

 

The concept of sustainability is definitely a very positive step; but the conclusion that small democratic societies like this will work on a mass level is a large leap. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

 

Is your argument that because we are programmed as societal animals, that therefore government will always exist?

This argument seems generally non-sequitur. I absolutely agree that we are social creatures, and thus we are naturally inclined to live in societies. I also agree that we ought to live in societies as it is in our rational interest to do so. It doesn't follow however that therefore these societies must be governments of the form we see today, and more importantly, that they be coercive in nature. That is to say, a voluntaryist society can possibly exist, and so you cannot argue that government must always exist.

Additionally, you can't argue that government ought to exist due to our biological tendencies.

Sure, terms get thrown around, used in pursuit of x y z interest, blah blah. Sure, also some individuals want everything de-regulated, some want most, some want a few, some want none. People also want deregulation for a variety of reasons too. To me this is an interesting social phenomenon, but not particularly relevant to whether x policies will generate better outcomes.

On the invisible hand, out of interest, what specifically did Adam Smith say that was relevant then, and not now. Just purely out of interest.

So is your general argument that because there are situations like this that can arise, that therefore the free-market can be unjust and thus intervention is required?

Without adding anything to the previous question, and also not knowing anything other than what you have just said. The miners clearly preferred staying at the mine than they did leaving it. If they couldn't leave it, this is coercion, and any consistent 'libertarian' of 'free-marketeer' would not support coercion.

Surely some types of oppression is less oppressive than other types of oppression? Talking in abstract terms, is a brilliant way to evade reality. I think most of us would prefer a system that oppresses us the least, whatever system you want to call it is pretty irrelevant, and in fact just distorts the issue. So the question isn't would i rather by oppressed by a republic or a plutocracy, the question is which system, the way in which it specifically manifests in the real world oppresses me the least. If I conclude that the republic does, it seems reasonable that I would prefer a republic to a plutocracy right?

 

Government is the idea that a group of people have legitimate authority to rule over others. There is society without government. I do think it is possible to have a society that respects self-ownership and a right to self-determination.

If you skip the euphemisms that's what it boils down to. You are forced to pay for something that you don't necessary agree with, want, or need through the threat of violence, theft, or imprisonment. Try not paying your taxes and see the state's true colors.

For the record I wouldn't really refer to myself as a Libertarian for that reason. I go by voluntaryist, agorist, anarco-capitalist, etc. Directly refers to the actual philosophy and not some political party.

Baseless statement followed by a list of services.

It isn't really especially difficult to see how a free market handling these kinds of services would lead to higher quality, more practical and efficient ways to accomplish these things, etc.

The government doesn't have any reason to provide the consumer with anything of quality. There are no market forces driving quality up and prices down, because they have a monopoly of force to keep other businesses out of the market.

Your alternative is literally for a gun to be held to someone else head to provide money for whatever you feel that you want or need. That is theft, regardless of intentions.

I see a homeless guy on the street. I want to help him out but don't have any cash on me. I ask you and you say no. Should I force you to the ground and take your wallet/possessions and help give it to him because I 'feel' that'd be the right thing to do? What if 6/10 of my friends feel that's the right thing to do? As if men in suits thousands of miles away have any more legitimate right to do so because they've signed papers allowing themselves to do so.

[/quote]

The idea isn't based on a "false sense of freedom." But that you own your own body and possessions and that someone threatening to initiate violence against you is immoral. It isn't any more "idealistic" than believing that a group of politicians with a monopoly on the initiation of force will have your best interest at heart and the interest of the society.

What are you suggesting would be oppressing you in the scenario I suggested? The fact that you'd have to earn your own money and exchange it for goods and services that you want? That people have more money than you so they're better off and that's unfair?

I'm saying NO ONE has a right to rule over you. Not a government, not a corporation, not a group, not an individual. If is immoral to initiate violence against a peaceful person. People should have the freedom of association, etc. At worst its unavoidable like you said, which in that case I see treat it as a cancerous tumor. Cut it back as much as possible, the more far reaching the government is the worse off we get.

Everything other than that that I suggest are merely ideas. I see free market capitalism being the best and most efficient system. But if someone wants to join a commune and split everything evenly between every person, and they find a way to do that they can. Freedom of association. I still think we agree on a lot even though this thread doesn't show it very well.

tl;dr stealing peoples shit is wrong. tl;dr hitting is bad

 

FREEDOM! Love reading posts about Scotland - my family has roots there.

The concept is awesome, it just would never realistically work on a larger scale.