The idea of having a small housing development of people all of whom are sworn defenders of the Bill of Rights is appealing. Knowing your neighbors are decent people who will mutually protect one another from all hazards is extremely liberating. But it’s also problematic from a legal perspective and can create moral hazards as well.
Legally, you can sell or rent housing on any basis other than ability to pay. You can’t say, “only people who agree with ‘x, y, and z’ can buy or lease my house.” The reasons for this are not outlandish: there was a time when “no Jews or blacks allowed” signs were actually on display in some areas. Imagine not being able to secure housing because you are black?
The desire to be physically surrounded by people you can trust, what we call a “trust community”, because you share their values and beliefs is natural, normal, and healthy. But the logistics are problematic for the reasons stated: legal limits and, in the absense of those legal limits, racial discrimination. On one hand people have a right of free association, on the other hand people have a right to equal access to housing based purely on their ability to pay.
In proposing a possible solution, let’s be clear: we think using this solution to limit your circle of trust on the basis of race is reprehensible. It may be within your rights to do so, but as Freedomists we do not see, or differentiate ourselves on the basis of, race.
The breakthrough idea of what should have become an “American Civilization”, transcendent of the Old World and Western Civilization, was that race and blood do not define you but only merit, character, and skill. Defining ourselves and our trust communities on any basis other than freewill covenant association based on mutuality and shared beliefs and values is a step backwards from the advancement of freedom.
How then can people create trust communities?
First, you don’t have to all live on the same exact plot of land. You can build trust circles with friends and families on the basis of shared ideals and the such on your own. You may form a group, club, or some kind of association and even have a gathering place, like a hall or a common house, for activities.
But what if you wanted to get together with, say, 10 to 30 families and a few single adults to cluster together on one piece of land?
First, we caution you, be careful of isolation and separation from the greater society. An isolated community disconnected from the greater society becomes like the Dead Sea. You will lose your creativity and your vibrancy and you will become moribund, it won’t last.
In practical terms, the best approach isn’t the most convenient. If you want to cluster together in a single physical space, you will need to forego direct ownership of your residence and become a shareholder in a mutual benefit corporation whose membership is limited to your club or association.
We do not recommend large-scale versions of this, nothing beyond 100 adults, ideally around 20 to 30 families and attached single adults. Large-scale versions of thos would bureaucratize and become more and more insular and top-heavy. But a small trust community of less than 100 adults is still a part of a larger community and can remain connected and engaged with the greater world.
One new concept is something we refer to as a charter community. This is a larger scale Village whose land and public spaces are owned by a private entity but whose buildings are owned by various mutual benefit corporations of differing types (none based on race), private individuals, or by the corporation who leases space based on the fair housing act. This “intentional community” is pluralistic, as we, believe society should be, and doesn’t leave anoyne behind on any basis other than ability to pay.
A “freedom shire” village like this would not welcome “trust communities” that don’t at a minimum agree to abide by the Bill of Rights and the law, so it would be a mix of small trust communities in miniature neighborhoods and individual residences, all side-by-side and interactive to one another.
As noted, the biggest downside is that if you use this approach, the mutual benefit corporation, you own SHARES, which equate to your residence, but you don’t hold the deed to your residence.
It is possible that if a group of friends all cooperatively bought land and built homes they could individually own them, but if and when a member moved or died, their land and house could only be sold on the basis of the fair housing act. They could form a mutual number corporation that buys the land and home, but within a few generations they would have converted all the land and homes to a mutual benefit corporation ownership model.
Before running off to do this, consult a lawyer and make sure you understand what kind of community model, governance structure, and common standards and norms your trust community will follow. Make sure it doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights, and make sure it isn’t merely a cover for racism or separatism. Your goal isn’t isolation and separatism, but mutuality of support within a strong circle of trust among people who live near you.
For many, simply building trust circles among local people and having a common place to gather and do activities should be enough. They may even go a bit further and equip their common house or whatever it is to provide emergency and disaster shelter for all members in a time of need.
As Freedomists, we consider basing a trust community on race alone, as opposed to shared beliefs and values alone, to be negative and hostile toward freedom and a pluralistic society. There are those who will use such an idea for race-based trust communities, but they are not Freedomists and they will not thrive.
The notion that black people or white people should define their communities by race alone is a throwback to a time when you were defined and limited by whose loins you came out of. But when we take the idea of intentional identification and trust based on ideas we transcend that limited view and we free ourselves from unnecessary limits.
As an example, the biased press portray Europeans who reject the mass influx of Muslim refugees as if they are racists. The problem many Europeans have with the “refugees” is that they have a culture and belief system that is hostile to European culture and beliefs and, on top of that, these “refugees” are trying to force the Europeans to assimilate to them!
Very few Europeans who are hostile toward the alien invaders who attack their culture would feel that way if these people were joining and embracing the European culture and beliefs which are, frankly, Christian at their core.
When we say we are against race-based trust communities, we are not falling into the mindless “multiculturalism” garbage that says “all cultures are equal”, while attacking historically European cultures. Let’s face it, Freedomism is open to all people all over the world, but its genesis was European.
In many ways, our trust communities might tend toward a more European culture, but they should welcome people on the basis of their convictions, not solely on the basis of their ancestry. Many “Europeans” by descent are hostile to the core ideals and freedom values inherent in European culture and traditions and many people who aren’t European by descent are quite loyal to those ideals and values.
We must make no apologies for extoling the achievements of the European peoples and their contributions to the cause of freedom, which have been unique and unparalleled in all of human civilization. But we are also going beyond this, to expand this, and to call and welcome people of all nations and races to embrace freedom and live in liberty!