some time ago I was talking with an eccentric, rich buddy of mine about this same topic, and our conversation lead me to make a similar thread here on the forum.

basically the proposal was: what if someone bought tens of thousands of acres in an area suitable for survival, with abundant natural resources, built a community bunker that could house the groups members in an emergency, fully stocked with food and other appropriate preps - would you be interested in joining up if you had a house where all construction materials were provided free of charge for you, you put the sweat equity into building a preper's 'dream' house (with labor assistance from the community as needed), poured in place concrete, secured basement, and whatnot. There would never be any rent or payments owed, all you would have to was maintain a stock of preps so you could provide for your family for a certain period of time. The land would be leased so undesirables could be thrown out, but the lease would have a stipulation that any leaseholder could stay a minimum of x years to offset the sweat equity in their home construction...

The overwhelming response? no way.

preppers by and large seem to want to go at it alone - something that i find rather odd as the one big thing that really cant be prepped for is an overwhelming attack - the only way to defend against that would be being part of a large group.

 

Perhaps not go it alone, but many feel it much better to be able to pick the members of their group.

 

Agree with Tach, in a closed environment we are only afforded to trust who we can get to know. As a risk management decision, there are too many variables to be a good option being inserted in a large group. A viable option is to design a network of trades and services between small groups. No different than what we had many years ago.

 

Agree with Tach, in a closed environment we are only afforded to trust who we can get to know. As a risk management decision, there are too many variables to be a good option being inserted in a large group.

i would argue that issue.

if i was living in a post SHTF world without government order I would MUCH rather be part of a community of organized, like minded individuals who each own a substantial amount of preps and firepower, who all live in a clustered, defendable positions in a community of maybe 1000 - as opposed to be with a dozen buddies of various states of prep.

it's just simple math. if things get to the point of wide spread need, it will be much easier to overcome a small group than a very large one.

 

yeah provided it is run my way. and that is never going to happen.

 

Secure Communities...

In time, it seems all the old ideas are made new again.

In Montana, it was the "Church Universal Triumphant", or, " CUT " that tried to have all their members live in communal harmony as they built massive underground bunkers and prepped for the end of civilization. They set up their compound on a huge ranch in the Livingston area, and had all the advantages of abundant natural resources and wildlife, but , in the end, could not keep themselves going. They were actually quite successful for several years, but, not much is heard from them now. Most of the ranch property has been sold off, and the people have gone on to other lives. Their leader, Elizabeth Clare Prophet has passed on, and leadership became a shambles following her death.

The 'Montana Freemen' also tried having a similar compound as mentioned by the OP, and that too ended in disarray. There are many other examples throughout our history... It seems these experiments tend not to end well...think Waco.

Wash, rinse & repeat...

 

basically the proposal was: what if someone bought tens of thousands of acres in an area suitable for survival, with abundant natural resources, built a community bunker that could house the groups members in an emergency, fully stocked with food and other appropriate preps - would you be interested in joining up if you had a house where all construction materials were provided free of charge for you, you put the sweat equity into building a preper's 'dream' house (with labor assistance from the community as needed), poured in place concrete, secured basement, and whatnot. There would never be any rent or payments owed, all you would have to was maintain a stock of preps so you could provide for your family for a certain period of time. The land would be leased so undesirables could be thrown out, but the lease would have a stipulation that any leaseholder could stay a minimum of x years to offset the sweat equity in their home construction... The overwhelming response? no way.

In a sense, you've just described some of the conditions common to a term of military service (and living on base)...which some folks willingly volunteer for and others cannot stand the idea of. By law and regulation, the military experience at least dispenses with the overtly political/religious/philosophical baggage that seems to overcome most survivor communities. The military has a legally enforceable "employee policy book" and organizational hierarchy. Most survival/preparedness communities don't.

Americans (by and large) are imbued with the whole property rights, rugged individualist, capitalist frame of mind...even if they live in an efficiency apartment in the canyons of some city. Most don't make good followers, kibbutzniks, commune members, or cultists.

The communities we've seen make the news over the years also tend to attract more than a few loons and folks who DO make good cult members. For group dynamics, I think that's often a recipe for disaster...like having claustrophobics on submarines.

That and the fact that many previous efforts have been run by financial charlatans...

A planned community needs more than just preparedness oriented architecture and logistical self sufficiency. It also needs the full range of everyday normalcy provided by any successful town. Police, EMS, Fire Department, schools, utilities, retail, sports facilities, churches, public works, town hall, and a profitable business plan. It's not enough to circle up a neighborhood with interlocking fires, cisterns, and community root cellars. You won't attract the long term inhabitants who can actively make such a community thrive if you design the whole place with merely a siege mentality.

It would take quite a financial investment (and perpetual taxes) to keep it afloat.

 

Americans (by and large) are imbued with the whole property rights, rugged individualist, capitalist frame of mind...even if they live in an efficiency apartment in the canyons of some city. Most don't make good followers, kibbutzniks, commune members, or cultists.


A planned community needs more than just preparedness oriented architecture and logistical self sufficiency. It also needs the full range of everyday normalcy provided by any successful town. Police, EMS, Fire Department, schools, utilities, retail, sports facilities, churches, public works, town hall, and a profitable business plan. It's not enough to circle up a neighborhood with interlocking fires, cisterns, and community root cellars. You won't attract the long term inhabitants who can actively make such a community thrive if you design the whole place with merely a siege mentality.

It would take quite a financial investment (and perpetual taxes) to keep it afloat.

in the scenario i put forward there was no anti capitalism forces in play. other than the fact that the houses in question were not to be sold to members of the community, there was no rent, required community service, or other forms of indebtedness that shackled the leaseholders. in fact they were encouraged to interface with the outside world as much as possible, earn livings, take their kids to disneyworld, etc. it should be obvious that the idea of having a nice house that you owe no payments on and can stay in as long as you dont buck the system could be a very powerful financial tool as housing is one of the biggest expenses in most people's budget.

the idea was really simple, the argument was that the larger the community, the more likely it could survive any extreme lifestyle changing calamities that the future might hold. All the 'community' wanted was for you to lay your head down most nights inside the community and to consider your home your bug in location.

again the general consensus was still no - with the idea that most people saying yes would just be in it for free housing and not be committed preppers

 

The concept is intriguing, but not totally novel. A utopia designed by citizens, for the people, by the people. I wonder how that worked out last time it was conceived and implemented???

I guess I'll pass mainly because like Goucho Marx stated when asked why he never joined any fraternal organizations -- I'd never belong to a group that would accept someone like me as an member.

 

I think there is a possibility it could function IF there was a military code of justice-like set of laws. It would not be large enough to form a true republic, but perhaps have elected leaders in a few positions and go from there. I think the vast majority of these utopian-type communes lack a legal/govt. structure going in and quickly descend into a tribal/strongman type of tyranny. For the whole thing to work, you need to make a quasi-government that replaces the local and state govt. that would no longer be there. Fill the power vacuum with something that looks like what previously existed and I think you'd have a decent shot. Essentially, you'd be making your own little town. Just my thoughts...YMMV.

 

I have 5 children, 4 grandchildren (one more on the way), my point? Getting them to agree on more than simple stuff in the family is hard enough, getting more than 5 family groups to live by a set of rules that restrictive.... Not happening, and in fact I taught them to be independent, so is it any wonder I would not fit in?

 

When you read through many of the threads on this site the general consensus is that most preppers want to be able to pick their own groups, often be the leader and really want their opinions to be the main one. I can't even begin to count the number of times that someone has said they would refuse to deal with someone who dosnt share their opinion or thinks differently.

Plus many preppers tend to be very lone wolf or at max, look after their own family unit. They tend to assume that no one better could look after their own well fair, and in many cases they can be right.

For these kind of community ideas its not the ideas that are the problem. It tends to be the audiance.

 

Unless you had a very clear set of laws, a code of conduct, a mechanism for changing those laws and that code, and a mechanism for the transition of government/management clearly in place before you began recruiting, I don't think it would turn out well.

I'm not of the lone wolf persuasion, but I definitely don't intend to sign up to be someone else's serf, which is how many of these communities have historically turned out.

 

I personally like the idea and i would seriously consider joining a group like that just taking long enough to look over the laws of the community. I am a military brat and would welcome a structured environment. i just hope that if a prepper community is formed someplace I find out about it and have the option to move there.

 

Love these conversations.

This is my take... People have what is referred to as a 'monkey sphere'. Ultimately people will get more upset over a close friend or relative dieing then 100 people somewhere else they don't know. That is the determining factor behind micro-nations, communes or communities. Not enough people and the community will fail from lack of tasks being completed to sustain life. If you have too many people, too many for a monkey sphere to exist it becomes impersonal and people will less likely help each other. Bob won't work as hard to harvest crops or will give people he knows the best and ones he doesn't everything else. The community, which ultimately has to be run in a communist fashion will fall apart.

Communism works. It is the best solution. Only if its on a small scale with people you know and care about. Everyone will for the most part work hard for the greater good.

On a large scale it all falls apart and no one will do anything because there's no motivation, which makes capitalist the best system.

 

There WAS a great, peaceful system in place for mankind to live in tune with nature and their fellow man. Then the Europeans came along and eradicated it, gave it religion, small pocks, reservations....

 

Tell that to a Lakota or Navajo tortured to death by Comanches.

 

Here's how I think this could work.

Someone buys some acreage and sub-divides it into individual lots of say 1-20 acres, and then advertise it to the prepper community. Each family comes in and builds their own house/farm as they see fit according the the building guideline/restrictions/codes of the area.

Nobody decides who will stay and who will go since everybody is living their own life on their own property.

There could be a certain amt. of acreage set aside for common use. Like a herd of cattle or making hay. Only those people who agree to be involved in the common property, would have to put up their money, time and benefit from the fruits of it.

This way everyone would still be living their own lives but would be around like minded folks in case of a SHTF situation where they could all support each other.

I don't like the commune idea but I really like the idea of living in a sub-division with 'like' minded folks.

 

Someone buys some acreage and sub-divides it into individual lots of say 1-20 acres, and then advertise it to the prepper community. Each family comes in and builds their own house/farm as they see fit according the the building guideline/restrictions/codes of the area.

Nobody decides who will stay and who will go since everybody is living their own life on their own property.

There could be a certain amt. of acreage set aside for common use. Like a herd of cattle or making hay. Only those people who agree to be involved in the common property, would have to put up their money, time and benefit from the fruits of it.

This way everyone would still be living their own lives but would be around like minded folks in case of a SHTF situation where they could all support each other.

I don't like the commune idea but I really like the idea of living in a sub-division with 'like' minded folks.

wuold you move cross country just to live in a subdivision of like minded folks?

i doubt many will. in order for such a scheme to work you need to have a high reward to cost ratio, ie free land or some other issue that makes the offer advantageous to the newcommer

 

I have to move anyway and am looking at Idaho and Wyoming. So yes, I would move.

 

Seems interesting:

http://freestateproject.org/

 

Please come. We need more people like you to offset the constant migration of M*******s...

 

Want to but that is risky!!

Some rules I live by. Never trust the government. Never trust a Fart. And never trust people you don't know. Yes I have thought a lot about the security provided in larger numbers. The draw back is that it only takes one unstable person to tear it all apart from within. It takes along time to build the kind of trust you need when someone's watching your six.

 

I have cast about for examples of successful community living, and through all of my searching I have found only one kind of long term successful closed community. In Israel there are many kibbutz, some of a religious nature some not. They are self sustaining and have survived for many years. I think there is a possibility of modifying the concept of a kibbutz and using it as a model for a community of like minded people.

 

I'm already here in Wyoming Yehudi and very interested in a community. Right now I'm a lone wolf because I hafta be. I would have much to contribute to a community of Wyoming preppers.:thumb:
Look through my posts here and get back to me.

Welcome to Wyoming.:

 

I heard of some very large sub-divisions there in WY. but I don't remember where and can't find it again. Basically they were selling 20-40 acre lots. They were very reasonably priced. With a small down the owner would carry.

Now that would be a really good idea. A bunch of preppers buy their own lots in a place like this with plenty of land. I could really get into a project like that and it would be affordable for a lot of people.

Biathlon, if you see something like that can you post it?

_________________________________________________________

Here's another wild idea for everyone but one I like. A abandoned hospital or institution. They have lots of buildings and lots of land.

A burden to the state and one they may sell cheaply.

 

Sure, why not? My money will be worthless pretty soon anyway, might as well spend it now on Wyoming. :xeye:

On a serious note, a few years ago a few friends on mine looked into doing something similar. The basic idea was to make an LLC and buy a bunch of land. I think that we were looking at a little over 400 acres for the 4 of us. Then we were going to carve out enough for each of us a small farm, deed it to ourselves, and leave the remainder in the LLC. Looking at it more in depth, there might be better ways than to use an LLC.

Since all of us knew each other, it was pretty easy for us to draw something up. We took a small portion of the land and set it aside for livestock, the rest was just there for recreational purposes. I think that ours was less a commune and more of a pre-fab neighborhood where we were all friends already.

It seems reasonable, but with a bunch of folks that you meet on the internet? You'd probably need a pretty good screening process just to make sure that everyone was compatible.

 

Great comments everyone. Of course, as you all know, “Gedanken” is a thought project. Many of Einstein’s experiments were Gedanken experiments, problems he pondered in his mind without actually doing them physically. However, everything has to have a beginning.

The Idaho panhandle is a great place because it is isolated. It also may be far enough away from Yellowstone Caldera to survive an eruption. IMO, the Rocky Mountains would also offer great protection in Wyoming. There is a great deal of open territory here.

One of the things that the Citadel seems to lack is a secure underground bunker for the residents. I think that a “Cheyenne Mountain” type facility as a place to escape major devastation would be a great asset. It could also be used as the main storehouse for survival supplies and annual harvests, for all residents. Meanwhile, everyone could live in relatively ordinary housing surrounding the bunker.

Citadel’s idea of poured concrete housing is a good idea. That provides secure housing that is durable, bulletproof, and fireproof. Done properly, they could also be fairly energy efficient.

IMO, the trick will be in finding a social structure that is not just acceptable to many different people, but actually preferred.

 

Great comments everyone. Of course, as you all know, “Gedanken” is a thought project. Many of Einstein’s experiments were Gedanken experiments, problems he pondered in his mind without actually doing them physically. However, everything has to have a beginning.

The Idaho panhandle is a great place because it is isolated. It also may be far enough away from Yellowstone Caldera to survive an eruption. IMO, the Rocky Mountains would also offer great protection in Wyoming. There is a great deal of open territory here.

One of the things that the Citadel seems to lack is a secure underground bunker for the residents. I think that a “Cheyenne Mountain” type facility as a place to escape major devastation would be a great asset. It could also be used as the main storehouse for survival supplies and annual harvests, for all residents. Meanwhile, everyone could live in relatively ordinary housing surrounding the bunker.

Citadel’s idea of poured concrete housing is a good idea. That provides secure housing that is durable, bulletproof, and fireproof. Done properly, they could also be fairly energy efficient.

IMO, the trick will be in finding a social structure that is not just acceptable to many different people, but actually preferred.

I really like this idea of a secure underground bunker with regular housing all around but that sounds ubber expensive. Having no engineering background I can't even imagine how hard that would be to build.

 

Okay, I've got the perfect.... almost perfect...... idea for a prepper community. Now this is a little different..., and I don't want to hear anybody laughing.

Why not get together and buy a community that has already collapsed? Like huge sections of Detroit that could be had for almost nothing. They have acres upon acres of abandoned property. Houses too far gone could simply be bull dozed.

There would be plenty of room for livestock. Some of the old brick buildings could easily be used for barns, storage, roof top gardens?

Buy a large enough chunk of that, fence it off and it's off to the races.

If enough people joined in we could set up our own police/security, school, fire dept. It would be a city within a city!

Each family would buy their own fixer/upper and pay for the repairs themselves.

In addition, it would help the city with a major maintenance problem.

Ohio has fairly lax gun laws so one could look there.

I like it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...ch?annotation_id=annotation_102173&feature=iv&src_vid=JhwGHZ8lFO8&v=5dAoSFA5yaY

 

Folks are already doing this in some areas, just not advertising, and generally they're going in for community gardens and chicken coops rather than large livestock. They don't call it prepping per se, but groups of friends or extended families are quietly buying distressed neighborhoods and fixing them up. The problem is, where I've seen it happening are in big cities with VERY restrictive gunlaws. Those neighborhoods tend to have lower than average crime rates though as folks watch out for each other.

Personally I think it's a great way for urban preppers to group up

 

The Idaho panhandle is a great place because it is isolated.

It seems to me like the Idaho, WY area would lend themselves to shorter growing seasons and perhaps some water issues. If the idea was sustainable living, how well would those choices be?

 

I
I grew up on a small farm in northern Wyoming. In our garden we had corn, potatoes, beans, peas, carrots, zucchini squash, acorn squash, eggplants, radishes, onions, lettuce, cabbage, celery, beets, turnips, peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers, watermelons, cantaloupes, and pumpkins. In our yard we had crabapples and several ordinary apples. We had plums, pears, strawberries, chokecherries, raspberries, gooseberries, and currents. We also had wild asparagus, prickly pear cactus, aloe vera, sage, mint, and all sorts of other plants growing wild. We had a half acre garden, and it pretty much fed our family of 11.

Stranded on Earth when the spacecraft that brought me here in 1947 later crashed in New Mexico. Lost my ride home.

 

My Old Condo Was Bad Enough

The owners association was a joke. I never signed into it when I bought the dump years ago and there was no stipulation that I had too. Yet some of my neighbors fibbed on me to the local POWERS THAT BE and the only solution was to sell the place, (at no profit) and move out of COMMIEFORNICA to the SW Oregon Republic. A great decision.

The point here is that even 48 individuals owners could not simply get along. Some of the occupants did not even try to reach a compromise...they were just annal rectums. I can just wonder what might happen when a bunch, (hundreds?) of independent gun toting patriots try to find a solution to some non-envisioned situation or problem? HB of CJ