[sjkted]

asteram: I think these are all great guidelines. The point is the the golden rule -- i.e. he who has the gold makes the rules. In other words, the mini-Hitler's are normally the one who has greater ownership over the land and resources. It's one thing to have a community agreement, but can the members who have not put up a significant amount of money oust the one member who has due to bad behavior. In most cases, I would say it would be difficult to do.

The other point is that rules constrain both the people enforcing the rules as well as those who must live by them.

For example, you say taking advantage of others is not allowed. Let's say the community's economic focus was to produce food for sale and there was a rift between members who wanted to produce food for consumption and others who wanted to produce food for sale. The members who wanted food for consumption would feel that the food-traders were trying to take advantage of their labor and not producing enough food for them. Likewise, the members who wanted food for sale would feel that the food-consumers were taking advantage of their financial investment and not allowing them to produce a return on investment.

It's a silly example, but the point is that rules are not always cut and dry and there is often a gray area. In our society, the members who felt the most deprived would end up hiring a lawyer, or contacting their local politician or congressman to change the laws. That's the last thing we need in a community.

It's a question of how to change this type of power dynamic. My view is that both of these are based on an idea of scarcity and the solution would be to create more abundance -- i.e. more food for both consumption and for sale, but in reality this may not always be possible. So, what's left? How do differences get decided? I'm afraid for the communities that have a mini-Hitler, despite all of their neat and clean rules, he's probably the one calling the final decisions.

--sjkted