Thoughts on an intentional community with a subjective ratings based economy

Why talk about an intentional community?

A subjective ratings-based economy (SRBE), as we have previously discussed, would not necessarily need to be forced into existence. It could (and we assume, it will) grow organically alongside the money-based economy and even co-exist with it indefinitely, that is, it does not necessarily need to completely displace money-based economies.

One might ask, then, why should we try to model an intentional community with a SRBE? An intentional community setting provides several advantages:

Intentional communities exist. There exist, today, communities like Twin Oaks which we have been discussing, who do choose to participate in a parallel economy. This is inspiring, because it is a reminder that parallel economies can and do exist and work.

Intentional communities are experimental. The type of person who lives in an intentional community has several traits which are useful in developing and testing a SRBE. They are open to social experimentation and nonstandard forms of life. They are likely less motivated by wealth and acquisition of personal property, and are more likely to have a communal mindset.

An intentional community provides defined boundaries to the system. Imagining a SRBE can be overwhelming when thinking about it from a whole-society view. There are so many questions about how to even get started that it’s difficult to do so. If we can assume the existence of an intentional community whose members have already agreed to participate in the SRBE, we can leave some of the harder questions for later, and focus on proving the core concept itself.

First thoughts about the rules

The only “rule” we have so far is vague: in order to be a member of the community, you must be a participant of the SRBE. But what does it mean to be a participant? This is one of those questions that might be harder to answer outside of an intentional community, but inside, the solution could be as simple as:

• You must exchange labour and goods for ratings alone, without barter or compensation.
• All transactions between members, gifts included, must be recorded and associated ratings provided by all involved parties.
• Members who consistently fail to provide ratings for their transactions, or who are caught bartering or making arrangements outside the system, will be dismissed.

Obviously there is the potential and probable necessity for rules that don’t directly relate to the usage of the economy, but may impact it. For example all local laws and regulations must be followed, open hostility will not be tolerated, and so on. However, many concepts that may show up as “Members should [X]” in traditional bylaws might conceivably be represented instead as ratings in the SRBE on the predicate “Member [Y] does [X]” or similar. For example:

• This member completes their rating tasks promptly.
• This member does not hoard excess items in their domicile.
• This member wears appropriate clothing in public areas.
• This member bathes at least once every day.

Obviously some of these may need to be more strictly enforced outside of the economy, but the idea is that “correct” behaviour can be incentivised rather than forced. Members who have a reputation for bathing irregularly may find it more difficult to receive goods and services, for example. They may check up on their ratings as a result, and resolve to change their habits, fixing the issue.

Some initial hand-waving

As mentioned, one useful thing about the intentional community setting is that it allows us to make plenty of assumptions about how the community handles certain things.

Let’s just take it for granted, for example, that everyone in our community lives in an identical home and an allotment on which to build, grow, raise, or do whatever they please, and that they are entitled to this as long as they are a member of the community. Utilities such as water and electricity are unlimited, but are metered and the meter readings are made public.

The community has agreed that one basic communal meal will be provided every day. While it is not necessary a “rule,” it is expected that most members will take part in this event most of the time in some capacity. Additional meals, snacks, and so on are of course allowed, as is occasionally missing the communal meal, but at the bare minimum everyone who lives in the community will be fed a nutritious meal once per day. The daily communal meal is a special group transaction, and serves as one reputational “focal point” for ratings. Members who volunteer regularly at the meal service and/or provide food and supplies will undoubtedly find themselves highly regarded in the community.

Mechanisms of the SRBE

Personal ownership of items is allowed and encouraged within reason, but there is a general expectation that members share things with each other (again, within reason) and record requests to do so (fulfilled or otherwise) as rateable transactions. For example, one member may own ten chickens. Another member may ask them to take one chicken. The owner of the chicken may accept or decline, but the transaction will be recorded and rated regardless.

The same member could then ask for some eggs, which could also be declined. However, there are pros and cons to each choice on each side. If the declined party keeps making requests, which are publicly visible, they may start to look obnoxious. However, if the declining party continuously declines more and more reasonable requests, their reputation as a contributing member of the community will suffer. Over time, this should create an organic and free-flowing body of data from which to draw subjective conclusions.

Let’s look at the chicken-raising member again; let’s call her Kaitlyn. Kaitlyn has worked hard to raise her chickens; they are her pride and joy, and she is also a vegetarian (but not a vegan). Kaitlyn is an ethically-motivated vegetarian, and is very protective of her chickens for fear that they will be killed and eaten. Kaitlyn is otherwise very generous; for example, she contributes regularly to the community meal and gives eggs to anyone who asks. it is therefore unlikely that she will acquire an unfavourable economic standing, despite her continual refusal of requests for chickens. In fact, it may become understood as sort of an antisocial behaviour to even ask.