SEDONA COMMUNE --An Intentional Community...................................... ......... “No army can withstand the power of an idea whose time has come.” --Victor Hugo

also consult: . . . ... ..... .............................................................................. . . . . . .. . . . . https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQ3oHQcmtEvW9L3K1nb1D2XE6wJ--MUVY8rp1BAazo8WCPlYHSWR1-61ln_yeWXx8mFBkKwLtfYIX-t/pub ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................... ....................................................................IMAGINE! . . . ............................................................................................................ Imagine a realm where there is no poverty, no hunger, no crime, no jails, no police, no hospitals, no chronic disease, no homeless beggars...a realm where the inhabitants are happy and extremely long-lived! . . . Such a realm would be dismissed as impossible!...as fantasy...as Utopian! No sensible poitician or sociologist would promise such a realm to their constituents or followers, and no city planner would ever think to form a community without police, or jails, or hospitals: critics would brand the concept as ridiculous, the planner as naive, and the plan as idiotic! ... Yet, the intention of this weblog is to engage dialogue into just such a possibility: this being a major reform of the current, and arguably dysfunctional, 'Incorporated City' model common to Arizona and most other States, and converting the Sedona area into a thoroughly communitarian habitat, inspired in part by the earlier Paris Communes and present-day Commune districts of France, in part by the Indigenous People's lifestyle, and in part by the valiant handful of political visionaries who have recognized the consistent failure of 'City Planning' throughout history. Imagine, if you will, a successful large-scale version of the many enthusiastic small-group 'communes' which have been attempted over the generations. . . . IMAGINE? --This is hardly a matter of imagining. Such a community exists today, and has existed harmoniously for over two thousand years... A community which became a country which........ [(with varying degrees of temporary success or permanent failure)] For the reasons that these did not long endure include, commonly, poor vision of their social function, lack of sustainable fund and provision sourcing, troubles with the Law and 'neighbors', poor internal organization and guidance of operation, and poor selection of compatible personality types. But the real reason for their failings concerns just two larger issues at the root of their conception:... 1) Their small scale and 2) their lack of political authorization........................................................................................................ To function as a self-sustaining entity, the Commune must be sufficiently large in population and area, and provided with sufficient resources, both human and natural, sufficient to produce wealth needed to maintain their existence --otherwise their economies are certain to decline below sustainable levels and will share the fate of every other 'failed State'. Equally essential to success is sufficient political Sovereignty --Sovereign authority of the populace-- to manage their internal affairs in a manner satisfactory to all residents. Without this condition being met, discontent will eventually arise, and internal strife will destroy the independent success of the community --leaving it to be subsumed by some other external authority...e.g., the State of Arizona, the Government of the United States. . . . With these conditions met, any populace may then secure for themselves Independence from the otherwise consistently dysfunctional models of Feudalistic societies, where one small class of 'rulers' exploit to their own exclusive benefit all other classes of people within their realm. The result is always the same: a permanent class structure under Absolute Despotism. This is the model which, unde various shallow guises, pervades most of the United States today, along with most other free Western "Dempocracies". The reason? This lies entirely in the value system on which the class society is built, and that value system is a hierarchy based upon material wealth and property --espcially in Land Ownership. Contrary to the established propaganda memes --or uncritically accepted standards-- private land ownershhip is NOT consistent with the concept a Democratic-Republic; it is the basis for a Feudalistic Dictatorship, where one small class owns the source of all real wealth: Land, or 'Real Estate'. The 'Titles of Nobility' of old Europe are literally Titles to Land ownership, a privilege reserved for an exclusive few. Witness the 'House of Lords' of Great Britain, whose Landowning members are not elected but appointed by the existing power structure. The Constitution of the United States forbids any title of nobility: Article I, sections 9 and 10. A 'LandLord' is thus a Title of Nobility, and is not a valid position in the American Republic........................................................................................................ Thus, given the information above, there is no call to ‘imagine’ anything. The Commune proposal is a fait accompli in Hunza, and can be so anywhere else on the planet. And why should it not be? It is proven to be the most successful socio-economic model in all known history, and has endured longer than any other society. All that is needed for like communities to be established and thrive within any basically democratic country is a simple plan of action: First, the voting populace must embrace their electoral power, and through elected representatives or direct ballot measure, abolish those forms and institutions which work against their natural rights and liberties and support instead any kind of rigid class structure. Thus, to abolish private, or State, ownership of land and its natural wealth is to abolish all Titles of Nobility or any pretense to them. There are no privileged individuals and no privileged classes. All land and natural wealth belongs to the people collectively, and through their exclusive jurisdiction is the land occupied and used by private persons for any purpose. All decisions for land use ultimately rest with a plebiscite, or popular ballot. All fees, or rents of land, which may be collected, are distributed equably to the people, who collectively own all land and its resources. Thus, an agreed upon scheme for land use and occupation ensures Sovereign dominion of the populace in all matters of property: all ‘real estate’ is public property. A Council of Elders –a traditional institution amongst most aboriginal societies, with survivals in such designations as ‘Brahmins’ of India and ‘Senators’ of the Roman Republic– is likewise recommended for the envisioned Hunza-based Commune wherever it may be established. This institution has no ruling, or Sovereign, power of its own but may only make recommendations to the populace on matters of governance, law and polity. The one ‘power’ the Council of Elders may be afforded is to place a ballot measure before the voting public, the content of which has been agreed upon by a majority of Elders on the Council. The Elders themselves are elected by ballot, and represent the interests of their constituents in approving ballot measures for the voters to decide upon. Otherwise, all ballot measures are drawn up by the people themselves, and approved by a predetermined percentage of petition signatories, in the manner customarily employed in first-world democracies. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQ3oHQcmtEvW9L3K1nb1D2XE6wJ--MUVY8rp1BAazo8WCPlYHSWR1-61ln_yeWXx8mFBkKwLtfYIX-t/pub