Orion, awesome pictures! Is the first one a painting, or a photograph? (looks like a painting to me)!
I totally agree with this, especially if “freedom” includes “freedom from having to participate in the wage economy”. To me I see it not as a dichotomy between “nomad” and “homesteader”/“settler”, but between agriculture/gardening and hunter/gathering. Of course these distinctions aren’t black and white; there is plenty of overlap. But I think this better describes the difference between those who choose to work more in order to have more of the benefits of civilization, and those who want to minimize the trappings of civilization in order to be able to work less (much less).
As long as everyone is clear about their choices, and doesn’t expect others to adhere to what they expect of themselves (in terms of workload, especially), then I think communities of people with mixed goals could potentially work out just fine.
This is precisely why I feel the need to really clarify the issues of lifestyles, workloads, etc; and why I cringe whenever I hear people talk about “paying your dues” or the virtues of hard work in general. I don’t have a problem with working hard, but I do have a problem in the expectations many have that survival (and happiness) necessarily requires the insane amount of “work” that people consider to be normal (up to and beyond half of one’s waking hours, and most of one’s waking hours if housework & child care is included on top of a full-time job).
Of course, it all totally depends upon what one considers to be “work”. One person may consider weeding to be a chore, while another may enjoy it as a relaxing hobby (although I’ve found it to be incredibly hard on the body - I am ALWAYS sore the next day, if I worked hard for a couple hours). The key is whether or not the work is freely chosen, or if it is an obligation that one has to do, but doesn’t want to.
If a person freely wants to teach something because they enjoy it, then should they “charge” others for it (in labor or money)? Depending on how much $$ they need to survive (how plugged in they are to the capitalist economy), they may have to. But if community meets their needs the same as everyone else’s, and if they desire to teach, then why should they require those being taught to pay? Why couldn’t those students just contribute to the community in other ways, freely given?
Of course, everyone who enters into a social agreement should fully understand the terms, and the basis for everyone’s terms. In other words, if someone chooses to have a house and bills to pay, and therefore need to charge for teaching (for example), as long as the students understand this and freely agree to that, all is well. I personally would not choose to pay more in this situation, if there another teacher existed who did not have those bills and therefore did not need to charge (or charged less).
I have spent years learning how to train horses and teach others to ride, and I would much prefer not that they students not have to pay me at all. The whole “payment” thing has always felt awkward and wrong to me, and especially when it is for something that I enjoy (I desire to teach others these skills when I feel that it would help them). But if I have bills to pay, then I have no choice but to charge.
I would much prefer to live in a community of people who freely give to others, without expecting payment. Where those who respect what they are given give back in other ways; where everyone spends their days helping each other, in whatever way they feel like doing (rather than people dictating to others what they need to do to contribute).
AHA! :o I think I’ve found it, the crux of my whole rambling argument: The difference between people contributing to the community in ways that they themselves choose (doing what they would like to do), and people contributing in ways that are chosen for them (imposed on them in the form of requirements, expectations, etc). Others may choose the latter, but I would want to live in a community of the former.