NLRBE-Like Intentional Community Quest – Destination Missouri

Second stop – Dancing Rabbit, for a full week long stay

Dancing Rabbit consists of five different legal entities, related in one way or another to the principle visible component: a “community” or “eco-village.” That principle visible component is a sustainability-focused, natural-building-focused, trade-based community, made up of both individuals and smaller groups, none of which are currently egalitarian 501(d) communities.

First let me just say thank you, to all of Dancing Rabbit! We are so grateful that you hosted us, as part of the September 2014 visitors program.

• Thank you especially to Alline and Kurt, the innkeepers of the stunning Milkweed Mercantile, where we stayed. Thank you for the gift of sheltering within in the priceless piece of art that is your inn, for your thoughtful attention to our needs, and for sharing your personal experiences and insights.
• I am also deeply grateful to our visitor liaisons, Tereza and Hassan, for your care, presence, and guidance.
• My thanks goes also to all the many other groups and individuals, who hosted us for meals in their personal kitchens, gave us tours, played games with us, and answered our endless questions. You and your hospitality swept us off our feet!
• And finally, I wanted to offer thanks to the other visitors in our session. What a delight it was to get to know you all! We look forward to continuing connection with you over time.

Now, it’s on to the question I asked myself at every community we visited:

What aspects of this community would I want to integrate into an NLRBE-like intentional community, and which not?

There are indeed aspects of Dancing Rabbit that I would recommend integrating into any NLRBE-like intentional community.

For example, the breathtaking emphasis on nonviolent interpersonal communication. This included the use of the Restorative Circles process, for resolving interpersonal conflict. We were so impressed with a communication workshop offered to visitors. And we felt deeply moved seeing a group meeting, towards the end of our stay. We found the communication within both deeply met our needs for hope and inspiration.

I also recommend the integration of an NLRBE-like mission. There is nothing like a compelling mission to attract people who can meet a community’s needs for intellectual vitality and energy. And, of course, I am particularly interested in the mission of environmental sustainability. This mission is shared by both Dancing Rabbit and the NLRBE model. I also recommend NLRBE-like intentional communities integrate other NLRBE values into their mission.

But there were also aspects of Dancing Rabbit that I would not recommend integrating into an NLRBE-like intentional community.

For example, I would not recommend integrating a trade-based structure. Likewise, I would not recommend integrating what I believe are the related risks of both inequality and less than maximal environmental sustainability.

Let’s start with a discussion about the importance of equality, why I described Dancing Rabbit as utilizing a “trade-based structure,” and why I fear such a structure poses a risk of inequality, in contrast with other economic structures.

The NLRBE model fully embodies the principle of equality. For a discussion of the evidence-based reasons to want full equality, both to maximize public health, and to lay the groundwork for environmentally sustainable actions, please see this blog post.

Egalitarian communities also fully embody the principle of equality. They do this in ways described in the section on Sandhill, above. They also do it in ways covered in the section on Dancing Rabbit as well.

By contrast, trade-based structures, such as that of Dancing Rabbit, contain within them the potential for inequality. Likewise they contain within them the potential for all the unwanted side effects that can come with inequality, per the research described in the post linked above.

But, why do I say Dancing Rabbit has a “trade-based structure”?

Dancing Rabbit members are generally on their own financially and trade to get their needs met. The community does not require the pooling of income, common ownership, or the equal support of all members. This is in contrast with egalitarian communities. In these communities income is shared, most resources are commonly owned, and all members are supported equally.

I also describe Dancing Rabbit as “trade-based” because it is not a part of any sort of legal entity that exempts members from the tax consequences of free and equal sharing between members, the way 501(d) egalitarian community structures do. You can read more about these tax consequences in my handout from last year’s talk at the Twin Oaks Communities Conference.

To flesh out what I mean by “trade-based” a little more, the community has within it things like a trade-based “grocery store,” inn, restaurant, and set of cooperatives, used by members to meet most needs.

Despite the name, cooperatives are trade-based, in that you have to have something to trade in order to participate. Take the automobile cooperative, for example. People are individually charged for miles driven. And such cooperatives exist at Dancing Rabbit to facilitate access to everything from land usage, to energy usage, to kitchen usage, to shower usage, and even to toilet usage.

By contrast, in an egalitarian community, the community allows all members to freely use such resources. No one’s usage of food, or vehicles, or energy, or kitchen space, or showers, or toilets, or anything is individually tracked, billed, or blocked for “lack of funds.” (Except that, in some egalitarian communities, separate luxury stipends are tracked – which I don’t actually recommend; see the Sandhill section above, for more details).

So, while Dancing Rabbit has created separate legal entities designed to facilitate a certain kind of “sharing” of resources, each person must still pay his or her own way. And while costs are low, each person is on their own to make a living. And this is difficult to do in the middle of nowhere in Missouri.

This means inequality is a real possibility, and an actuality at Dancing Rabbit.

Examples of this inequality showed up at Dancing Rabbit in various ways. Some people hauled their own maneuver to composting areas, while at least one person had automatic composting toilets. Some people hauled their own water, while others had indoor plumbing. Some people relied only on foraged herbs and whatever out-of-pocket healthcare they could afford, while others had full health care insurance coverage. Some worked from dawn to dusk building their own homes by hand, while others had homes built for them, or purchased them prebuilt from someone else. Some relied exclusively on simple, shared, outdoor kitchens, while others had fairly well-equipped, personal, indoor kitchens. Some reportedly had work-at-home desk jobs, or lived off of inheritance or trust funds, while others did their best to survive off of small personal gardens, challenging individual or small group livestock management, and/or odd jobs for community members or for Dancing Rabbit’s nonprofit. And we were told that income ranged from about $5,000 per year to about $40,000 per year.

One person did point out to me that in some cases what seemed like inequality was in fact lifestyle choice – as in the case of one person who reportedly preferred to build their own home by hand, even though they had the money to do otherwise. But I do not believe that all of the inequalities we observed were desired by all involved. And, although it is at least theoretically possible that this could at times happen to be the case in any given snapshot moment at Dancing Rabbit, my concern is that the trade-based structure at Dancing Rabbit does not prevent the possibility of unwanted inequalities.

That said, I do appreciate how Dancing Rabbit has lowered the bar for entry into the community. It has done this by eliminating buy-in fees, and instead instituting low-cost lease fees for the land. However, already built homes on that land are bought, sold, and rented though. And, in any event, the set-up at Dancing Rabbit still permits unwanted inequality, along with its disruptive side effects.

In addition to the potential for inequality, another reason I would not recommend integrating Dancing Rabbit’s trade-based structure, into any NLRBE-like intentional community, relates to the goal of environmental sustainability.

This goal of environmental sustainability is, again, one which both Dancing Rabbit and the NLRBE model share.

The NLRBE model envisions achieving sustainability, in part, by pooling most resources. The idea is to pool both material and intellectual resources, to co-create and share the most resource-efficient infrastructure possible.

In addition, the NLRBE model strives for sustainability by making available what is needed and wanted primarily through a freely accessible, “use and access” property system. Imagine a public library system, but for virtually everything.

Such steps can dramatically reduce the amount of natural and processed resources needed for a universally high standard of living.

To be fair, Dancing Rabbit also implements a use and access property system of a sort. It does this with its vehicle cooperative, energy cooperative, etc.. It also discourages individual ownership with its “sustainability guidelines.”

However, the cooperatives are more analogous to rental equipment outlets than public libraries, in that money is still required to participate.

I’m concerned that such trade-based use and access property systems have more limited potential. That is, I’m concerned that the sharing is weighed down, with individual tracking, billing, and exclusion and inequality risks. In this way, I fear such systems significantly limit the potential for maximizing sharing, and hence maximizing environmental sustainability. At least, I believe that is the case compared with what both NLRBE and egalitarian community use and access property systems can achieve.

As GPaul explained so well in his talk, sharing, as much as possible, is the most resource efficient method of interacting.

And what better way to maximize sharing than to make it freely accessible to all?

This is just what egalitarian communities are uniquely built to do.

As GPaul explained, unfettered, free, and equal access sharing, is the default method of economic interaction in egalitarian communities. By contrast, exclusionary, trade-based “sharing” transactions, within an egalitarian community, are generally not even permitted. You would have to go out of your way to arrange these in egalitarian communities. Indeed, you’d potentially run into some legal complications as well, if you went too far.

At least all the foregoing is true with with 501(d) egalitarian communities. This is for reasons discussed in this talk handout from last year’s Twin Oaks Communities Conference.

However, in trade-based communities, as in our capitalist system generally, limited-access, economic transactions are the default mode of operation. It’s unfettered, free, and equal-access sharing which is the unusual, difficult to achieve option. Indeed, it’s so difficult that it’s typically only found in the context of biological families and small, intimate groups of friends. And, even then, there’s a risk of triggering gift tax consequences.

In the trade-based context of the United States, only the 501(d) establishes a “protective zone” for completely unfettered, free, and equal-access group sharing.

Outside of that structure, if we want anything beyond unreliable, small circle sharing, we are generally limited to sharing between those who are willing and able to both pay for their access, and deal with the complexities. To be done safely, trade-based “sharing” usually requires cumbersome, complex, specific arrangements, often with individual contracts. Sometimes more than one legal entity is necessary. Often separate insurance for each sharing instance needs to be arranged. There are potential tax and accounting complications and consequences aplenty. Attorney Janelle Orsi’s book, The Sharing Solution, is replete with examples of what I’m talking about.

And Dancing Rabbit is as well. Although more efficient than completely one-off, one-on-one sharing arrangements, Dancing Rabbit’s numerous coop legal entities accomplish what a single egalitarian legal entity can. And they require much more complexity, time, and effort, and yield more limited potential sharing.

Another concern I have about trade-based communities, like Dancing Rabbit, is that I believe they can increase individual temptations to act in environmentally unsustainable ways. That is, people can end up so tempted, in their desperate scramble to survive, to achieve some sense of security, and/or to keep up with the Jones’.

By contrast, I see egalitarian communities as naturally avoiding this risk by ensuring equal access to needs met by all. That’s because such a policy can dramatically reduce, or even eliminate, both the very real fear of being on your own financially, and of being judged and tempted accordingly.

Here are a couple of examples of the potential for less-sustainable temptations in trade-based environments.

First, at Dancing Rabbit, it is possible for someone with relatively low building skill to save money by designing and building a home themselves, with potentially less than maximally sustainable results. The trouble is, with limited skill and resources, some of these homes have ended up with moisture and heat-retention problems. Sometimes they have required significantly more wood be burned to keep warm in winter, compared with better built homes. And sometimes they even end up rapidly deteriorating, or being abandoned entirely, at least temporarily. In all of these cases natural resources are used that need not have been.

I’m definitely intrigued by natural building experimentation. And Dancing Rabbit does enable this. However, I’m not sure one-off experimentation, in the context of limited individual resources, is as helpful as group experiments would be. At least I’m not sure if the goal is to ensure the most environmentally sustainable building possible. And perhaps that’s not the goal. But that is a goal in an NLRBE. Hence it is one I’d like us to get as close to achieving as possible, in our creation of NLRBE-like communities.

Second, many commented on the temptation at Dancing Rabbit to build single-family dwellings, and often less densely than some would like to see. Some argue this kind of building, with more and smaller buildings, and more, less well-equipped kitchens, is not the most environmentally sustainable a way to develop. At least it’s not as sustainable as building fewer, larger, dorm-like buildings, with one or two, larger, shared kitchens, the way egalitarian communities tend to do.

But why would a population so devoted to sustainability be tempted to build more single-family dwellings and kitchens, and less densely than need be?

Part of the answer may relate to the complexity of arranging one-off sharing arrangements in trade-based contexts, discussed earlier.

Another answer may relate to the presence of inequality.

Inequality research, referenced earlier, shows that higher stress and lower trust and social cohesion result in the presence of inequality. Not surprisingly, when dealing with such challenges, people find they need more space, more alone time, with their families, or with whatever other small circle of people are in true solidarity with them financially. I can’t know for certain, but I’m guessing this may at least partially explain the temptation.

As an aside, I wonder if inequality may also at least partly explain why Dancing Rabbit’s village community felt it could no longer sustain a pure, community-wide, consensus-based decision-making structure, with its over 40 members and residents.

Instead it moved to a representative, small group decision-making body, called the “Village Council.” More than one person talked about conflicts over whether or not to raise fees paid by individuals, for group infrastructure improvements. I would guess that conflicts like these might be more prevalent, in the presence of financial inequality. And I would guess they would be more difficult to resolve via consensus as well. Plus, I could also see how it might make virtually impossible the kind of 80-adult consensus-based decision-making that egalitarian communities have been able to achieve (see the Sandhill section above for details).

In any event, all of the forgoing I fear works at cross-purposes with Dancing Rabbit’s vision of maximizing environmentally sustainable living. And, in turn, I fear Dancing Rabbit’s sustainability guidelines thereby risk becoming analogous to environmental laws in our capitalist economy. That is, I fear individuals and entities, on their own financially, become tempted to violate them, in their desperation scramble to survive and experience a sense of personal security.

Moving on from Dancing Rabbit’s trade-based structure, and its relationship to inequality and environmental sustainability, I would also like to see NRLBE-like intentional communities do more than Dancing Rabbit has done to minimize unnecessary human labor.

The NLRBE model envisions lowering the need for labor as much as sustainably possible. The idea is to free people to pursue their highest callings. For some, their highest callings may involve plenty of labor. And that remains an option for people in the NLRBE model. But it’s not required for survival.

I believe egalitarian communities come closest to offering that same potential. That’s in contrast with trade-based communities, like Dancing Rabbit.

One way to lower the need for labor is via minimizing the number of legal entities contained within a community.

With egalitarian communities, one legal entity can do essentially everything that at least four of the entities Dancing Rabbit has can (and, unfortunately, I believe Dancing Rabbit likely needs even more entities, given what I gather are currently unincorporated cooperative eating groups).

As a lawyer, who does tax-related accounting as well, I can attest to the incredibly time-consuming nature of complying with all requirements. And that’s for just one entity. Not surprisingly, it sounded to me like at least one person involved in this sort of work for Dancing Rabbit struggled with just this issue. That is the person bemoaned the overwhelming amount of accounting, required in order to manage such a large number of Dancing Rabbit legal entities.

Another way to lower the need for labor is via eliminating the life energy spent on individual tracking, billing, and restricting.

All egalitarian communities can largely eliminate this effort. And they can eliminate it entirely when they implement fully unitary economies. Thankfully, they are uniquely well-suited to do from a legal and tax standpoint (see section on Sandhill above).

An additional way to lower the need for labor is by pooling interested community members into creating just one, or a few, low-labor, high-dollar-per-hour earning businesses, rather than leaving each to his or her own financially.

East Wind, provides a great example of how this can be successfully done. And it leaves their members with incredible amounts of leisure time. This time can be used for relaxation, and for pursuing self-actualizing, monetary and nonmonetary aspirations of virtually any type. You can read more about East Wind in my section on that community, farther down in this post.

Moving on from integrating low labor requirements, I would also recommend that NLRBE-like intentional communities be extremely wary and get thorough, expert, legal advice, if and when considering in any way integrating a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) entity into their plans. Dancing Rabbit contains a 501(c)(3). More specifically, the eco-village/community is essentially an educational demonstration project of the 501(c)(3). And there are specific concerns I have with this particular set up, which I hope to get into in a later blog post.

I alluded to some of my concerns about involving a 501(c)(3) in a community, in any way, in this blog post. I also discuss the issue a bit in this handout, from last year’s talk about forming egalitarian communities. But see also the discussion about this topic in Chapter 16 of Deana Leafe Christian’s book “Creating a Life Together.” I believe what’s there is particularly on point, when it comes to some of my concerns about Dancing Rabbit’s specific 501(c)(3) arrangement. (However, please beware of this book generally, as I ran across more than one claim that I found inaccurate from a legal perspective. Plus, it is also to some extent out of date,given that it was written in the 90s. Also, portions may be inapplicable in particular cases, as is the case with all non-customized materials. Hence my ever-present recommendation that communities and individual members always secure expert, current, individually-customized legal advice.)

In any event, there’s so much more to say about 501(c)(3)s, so much more I have learned since writing prior posts, and so much more I have yet to research. I hope to separately delve more into this topic of integrating 501(c)(3) entities in at least one additional blog post in the future.

But for now I will leave it there, except for a few closing remarks about Dancing Rabbit.

First, notwithstanding anything I said above, Dancing Rabbit does encourage egalitarian communities to move into their community/village. Indeed, it began with one in its midst. That is, some of Dancing Rabbit’s founders started a smaller 501(d) community, living within the larger, trade-based, Dancing Rabbit community. But it eventually disbanded. And now the building that used to house it is essentially a rental.

Interestingly, apparently the founders debated a bit about whether or not to make the entire Dancing Rabbit community egalitarian. But, in the end they opted for a trade-based community. Unfortunately, I am not clear on the details of why they made this decision.

Regardless, as someone who would like to start an egalitarian community, I’m concerned about the larger, trade-based “cultural container” in which it would be held at Dancing Rabbit. My concern is that this container integrates a fundamentally different belief regarding what we need as a foundation for achieving environmental and personal sustainability. I fear this might lead to problematic disconnects.

In addition, I’m concerned about the limited size of the plots of land available at Dancing Rabbit. My worry is that they would be insufficient to house a large enough egalitarian community to give it the best chance of sustaining itself over the long term.

Second, I have some final thoughts to share specifically with all the amazing people we met at Dancing Rabbit.

I am in awe of you all.

We may have disagreements, for example about how indispensable egalitarian economics are, in efforts to achieve and model environmental sustainability.

However, even with these, part of me wanted to drop everything and join forces with you, right then and there. And my husband felt the same way.

Your passion, your mission, your communication skills, the adventuresome spirit of the entire community, were all such dazzling things to behold. And they stood in such stark contrast to the relatively isolated, materialistic environment in which we currently dwell, as we plan our next move.

So it is incredibly bittersweet to instead be here, and not there, with you all. The only consolation is the hope I have that we can continue be friends, and discuss and learn from one another. I hope for this ongoing connection, as we each open-mindedly strive, in our own ways, towards this goal of environmental sustainability.

In any event, thank you so very much for caring about our little blue dot as much as you do. And thank you for sacrificing so much for the sake of its preservation. I look forward very much to continuing to connect with those of you with whom I have established methods for ongoing communication.