Sam Martinez9 said:First off—it’s a matter of personal choice. We only get one life, so everyone should have the right to live exactly how they please, even if they happen to be making a mistake.
I skimmed through the article pretty quickly, and most of the communities mentioned seemed to have a negative bent—religious cults and things of that nature. Regarding those types of groups, I can only say one thing: they don't sit well with me because they actually offer less freedom than living in larger societies. There is almost always some *supreme leader* imposing incredibly rigid laws on every single member. Control is much easier to maintain and far more pervasive in small communities, leaving very little room for an individual to *live on their own terms*. The community only lives "differently" in relation to the rest of American society. Beyond that, all small communities inevitably offer a limited way of life to their members. What am I getting at? For instance, if a child in such a community has a talent and dreams of becoming a world-class pianist, a microbiologist, or even a surgeon, they won't be able to pursue that within the confines of a tiny commune; the group simply lacks the financial resources and infrastructure to support it. That is just another way liberty is stripped away.
In that sense, small communities act as deviations from mainstream society. Society is tolerant enough to allow them to exist, and since they are too weak to cause widespread damage, the harm is usually contained within the membership itself.
So, there is my critique of small communities; the affirmation will follow in my next post.
The author really went out of his way to highlight certain religious groups—giving this quick little history lesson that basically puts the spotlight on the long-standing ones. And honestly? It’s no surprise that most of them are tied back to specific denominations. Makes total sense.
Quincy:
| Always. So there’s always some "supreme leader" type imposing their rigid-as-hell rules on everyone in the group. It’s way easier to control people in small communities—you’re basically under a microscope 24/7, so there’s zero room to just *be yourself*. The only way these groups actually function is by being an outlier to the rest of society. Plus, let’s be real: these tiny setups offer such a limited lifestyle. What happens when a kid in one of these groups actually has talent? Say they want to be a world-class pianist, a microbiologist, or a surgeon—they aren't going to make that happen within the community because the math just doesn't work. There’s no way to fund or support that kind of ambition. That’s just another way they strip away your freedom. |
Nah, that’s just not how it works—based on what Metcalf said, which is pretty freaking obvious... we aren't living in the 1800s anymore.
When it comes to nurturing a kid's talent... I'm guessing people just lean on whatever community resources work for them at the time—or whenever their kids actually need it. Once the local schools can't cut it anymore? They're gone. Just like that. Either they head out solo or pack up the whole family and move to a better city. Simple as that.
Don't forget—denying a kid a decent childhood is basically just another way of stripping away their freedom. Real social connection and just letting kids run wild playing with their friends isn't even considered easy anymore—not in most big American cities, anyway.
Quincy:
These male communities are just straight-up deviations from how society should work—honestly. Sure, America is tolerant enough to let them exist, but they're basically just hurting their own members at this point. They're way too weak to cause any real damage to the rest of us.
Alright, here’s my take on why small communities are a mess—wait for the next post where I actually say something positive. |
Look, some small cult-like groups might be total deviations—they actually end up wrecking their own members—but let's be real, those types are a tiny minority.
Sam Martinez9 said:This really should have accompanied my previous post, but I forgot: since you are so fond of small communities (which is obvious from everything you write), why don't you actually live in one? Shouldn't you at least try living in one, so if you did eventually leave, you'd have a realistic perspective rather than just relying on what the media tells you?
My affirmation of small communities might not sit well with you because it isn't quite what you emotionally crave.
Ultimately, modern Humanity is composed of small communities. The only thing separating a small community from the rest of the world is that the boundaries aren't always sharp. A family is a small community, and within a city of 24 million people, large metropolises are broken down into neighborhoods; large states are divided into counties or regions, cities, towns, and even specialized groups—like a hiking club, a mushroom foraging group, an animal rescue organization, or a bluegrass band. A small community exists within larger ones.
As for communities that are more distinctly separated from the rest of society, we can look at religious groups, such as various monastic orders; for instance, I would suggest a Dinner Party community as a good example of that kind of setup.
Then we have villages that are isolated by poverty or by the sheer geography of the land, tucked away in hard-to-reach areas. You find these everywhere—from the Himalayas to parts of Romania or Bulgaria, mostly in the mountainous regions of almost every country in the world.
However, we should also include mountain villages in wealthy nations, such as those found in the Alps of Austria, Switzerland, or Italy.
Or, say, towns and villages located on islands.
We have the kibbutzim in Israel acting as small communities...
For a small community to truly succeed, it needs to be firmly linked to larger structures. Laws, economics... they cannot exist in total isolation. A community cannot simply operate under its own private legal code; it must be integrated into the legal system of the larger entity. The same applies to the economy.
And, naturally, the more prosperous the nation a small community resides in, the better and easier life will be there, which reduces the likelihood of the community collapsing or members leaving to seek a better life elsewhere.
People don't typically abandon villages in Austria, whereas American coastal islands risk becoming ghost towns.
I can't—well, I don't want to—live totally isolated... I've got a family to think about. So, what my wife and I have actually decided is moving to a smaller nearby town... just better conditions for the kids, plain and simple.
As for work—you know, actually making a living—we can't just pack up and move anywhere overnight.
But... we might eventually have to... even if the idea of moving overseas sounds exhausting.
So, basically, modern humanity is just a collection of small communities. The only thing separating a tight-knit group from the rest of the world isn't always a hard line. A family is its own little unit, and even within a massive city of 20 million people, everything is broken down—neighborhoods, counties, states, tiny towns, or even niche groups like hiking clubs (or mushroom foragers, animal rescuers, or local bluegrass bands...). A small community is just one layer inside a larger one.
When you look at communities that are more clearly set apart from society, you've got religious groups—different monastic orders, for instance. Personally, I’d point to a Benedictine monastery as a solid example of that kind of separation.
Then you have those isolated villages cut off by poverty or rough terrain—places tucked away in the Himalayas or deep in the mountains of places like Romania or Bulgaria; you find rugged, mountainous pockets like that in almost every country.
That said, you also have mountain villages in wealthy nations, like those nestled in the Alps in Switzerland or Italy.
Or, you know, island towns and villages.
We even have things like kibbutzim in Israel acting as small communities...
For a small community to actually work, it needs strong ties to the larger structures around it. Laws, the economy... they can't just exist in a vacuum. A community can't just make up its own rules; it has to be integrated into the legal framework of the larger society. Same goes for the money side of things.
And obviously, the wealthier the country, the easier life is within those small communities, which means there's less chance of them falling apart or people ditching for a better life elsewhere.
People don't leave prosperous mountain towns in Austria, whereas certain coastal towns in other places end up completely deserted.
It’s all about finding that sweet spot between autonomy and connection—balancing small communities against the big ones, where every level, from the individual to the family and beyond, plays its part.
Sometimes, what looks like a connection is really just a one-way street of dependency—small towns leaning entirely on the state.
To stop people from fleeing in search of something better, you need to provide a vision of a better future *right here*, rather than just focusing on current wealth. If people believe their kids will have a better life staying put, they won't feel the need to migrate at any cost.