I know a couple of people who want to start a commune. Oh, that’s not what they’re calling it, but that’s what it is.

They envision a common living space surrounded by either rooms or small cabins for individuals. They want a garden, where all residents contribute their labor and receive nourishment from the garden in the common dining area. All members would contribute to the common expenses. If any resident falls on hard times, financially or physically, the rest will take care of her. Basically, the residents agree to give up much of their individual liberties in exchange for lifelong security.

It’s not a new idea.

It is not the purpose of this column to explore the obvious questions in depth, but let’s just mention some of them in passing: How do you handle deadbeats who claim to be too sick to work but not too sick to eat? Does everyone contribute equally to the common heating bill, or in proportion to his earnings? If proportionately, what to do with those who could be surgeons but who choose to be janitors, and thus contribute less than they might? If all contribute equally, what to do with the member who heats his cabin to 80 degrees when communal money is tight?

These people believe sincerely that the good of the individual should be subordinate to the good of the community. And, if given the choice, they would turn the entire country into a nation where their beliefs would be the official policy. They consistently promote and vote in favor of legislation that moves our country in that direction.

I understand the historic tendency of humans to clump together. We are, after all, small and weak and slow and hairless. Our claws and fangs are useless for either hunting or defense. We can’t outrun anything we want to eat or anything that wants to eat us. If our ancestors had not clumped together for mutual warmth, protection, and hunting, not one of us would be here today. Our tendency, even in the 21st century, is to gather together with others of our species for companionship and collective bargaining and better rates on health insurance.

Having said that, I will tell you that I believe the individual human being is of primary importance. I believe the only person who should be able to make decisions about the life of any individual adult is that very same individual adult. You must be able to live your own life as you see fit, as long as you do not infringe on someone else’s exercise of that same right. In exchange for that freedom, you will have to live with the results of your mistakes.

Notice, please, that your right to live your own life as you see fit includes the right to voluntarily surrender some of that freedom if you believe that to do so is in your own best interest. You may enter into mutually beneficial agreements and organizations and institutions, and leave them when they no longer suit your needs.

And that brings us to the heart of the matter.

In the society I envision, my friends would be free to establish their commune, as long as participation was voluntary. People who wanted to live that lifestyle would be free to sign up and move in. Meanwhile, I would be living down the road in my own house. I would look at them and think, “Well, good for them. They seem to have found what works well for them, what’s best for all the members of their group. What a great garden!” They would look at me and think, “Well, good for her. She seems to have found what works best for her. I kind of envy her privacy, but I’m happy here.” We would smile and wave at each other every morning on our way to work. We would visit back and forth.

In the society they envision, they would force me to live in their commune, because they know what’s best for me.

KsSmallBiz.com, March 23, 2005

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »