[artvision]

Originally Posted by TtC

I will agree with Wormhole on the premise that it is not fear-based but a spiritual place.

The community I propose is closer to your B statement. I will elaborate. The way I have designed a lot of the community has to do more with physical mechanical integration of systems that are interconnected to help the community and reduce its environmental impact. That being said, statement A is not valid and statement C seems a little unfair to me. I want to offer everyone an equal opportunity whereas statement C is a kind of "fend for yourself within a loosely knit group" kind of thing. Whoever has the most money gets the nicest retreat. At the moment, the housing arrangements in my community are on a tell us you're interested in coming and we'll build you a house kind of basis. A different scenario would be tomorrow I get a massive influx of people who are all welcome and we have five hundred people there. We would be more inclined to convert to a loosely apartmentish type arrangement. I actually have this covered, but I'm keeping it short.

Number 1, Case B:

I have proposed a variation of this in order to keep everyone level. If everyone agrees to the same thing, then there are no loop holes per se. I wouldn't say there are strict rules as of yet, because so many factors are population dependent, the "basic premises" give everyone something to work with. At a later time and with more people a formal charter may be drafted, but in doing so, clauses must be written in for the evolution of the community, the people, the society, and the charter itself. I think Case C would have several things in common with Case B. To clarify, I have passed the premises through more than just myself and they were revised and edited to be more accommodating.

Number 2.1

I think there would have to be a certain amount of scrutiny. In such a situation there are liable to be people of unsound mind and well as those with malicious intent.

Number 2.2

Letting anyone in with no responsibility placed on them could cause harm to a community. You could have twenty people come in and eat all your food and leave in three days while stealing your stuff. A drastic example, but in such a scenario, there are bound to be those who go Mad Max and turn into looters and whatnot.

With either of number two, a certain amount of discretion should be employed, but you have to look at it from a logical standpoint because after a catastrophe there is a likelihood that some of the residents will allow fear to be a dominantly deciding factor when faced with a large number of refugees.

Thank you TtC, you are the first answer to my post, also your insights are very well appreciated.