> My neighbors can't get me kicked out of my apartment complex, because of my race, no matter how much they want that to happen.

The same is true in any self-organized community i know of. If anything, it would probably generate an invitation for the complaining neighbors to try and find some better suited place for them to live. That is because the only communities i've visited were very much antiracist, anticapitalist, antisexist. And despite all the instances of racism i've seen with my eyes (we are after all, all chidren of one of the most racist countries on earth), i've never seen in a community the kind of racial segregation and hatred i've seen on the streets of big french cities.

I mean, i could imagine some white supremacists setting up a community. But they would not let the rest of us in in the first place, and certainly wouldn't require a consensus to cause harm (whether psychological or physical) to their enemies. In a barbaric society where prison or death sentence are supposed forms of justice, it can appear that excluding someone from a community is simply a matter of personal preferences or bigotry. However, having to part ways with someone because they're harming your community and there doesn't appear to be ways to resolve the problem, is a serious concern that you may have to deal with sooner or later whether you like it or not. But proposing to exclude someone for a trivial matter would instantly raise red flags as an authoritarian manipulation scheme.

Life in a commune is not comparable to life under a nation-state in most regards. Your neighbors in a commune are not just people who happen to live nearby, they're people you live with. And certainly there's no landlord to deal with who have unreasonable power over others :)

> The same is true in any self-organized community i know of.

Alright cool. So then we agree that communities, democratically or not, should not be allowed by society to just kick people out, based on a "consensus" vote, for all circumstances.

We agree that such communities, should be prevented, using the force of law, from engaging in certain actions, such as kicking people out based on their race, even if it is done democratically.

And we should agree that allowing people to be kicked out, for any reason, is not a feature. Instead it is a bug. Such as if those people democratically kick out certain races.

And this whole argument of "why on earth would you be allowed to live in a place where nobody wants to live with you?" is a bad argument, such as in the circumstance of people wanted to kick out people based on race.

And when you ask "what's the alternative?", the alterative is individual rights, that prevent communities from kicking people out of where they live based on race, even if it is democratic.

And the "more humane" way of handling "undesirable" people is a system of individual rights, that prevents communities from kicking people out of where they live, based on characteristics such as race.

> to just kick people out

Neither does this place. It can only happen by consensus: that is, if everyone agrees. Not some majority, but everyone.

Obviously the question of what were to happen to your shares if you did get kicked out is unanswered, but aside from that, if you want to be able to continue living somewhere where everyone hates you enough that they are all calling for you to get kicked out, then maybe this community isn't for you, you can have that by living basically anywhere else. If you're even a little involved in the community, then it would be pretty difficult to get everyone else to work against you to kick you out. If every one of my neighbours were to conspire against me right now, where the houses are privately owned, I bet they could get me to leave by being hostile enough.

I do agree that a system of individual rights might be a more appropriate model for handling this, but I also don't know their full set of bylaws.

> It can only happen by consensus: that is, if everyone agrees

Ok, and if everyone uses a "consensus" to kick someone out, based on race, that should not be allowed, and the government monopoly on violence, should be used to enact legal arrests or fines on those people/communities.

The law should come in, and prevent this group from kicking people out, based on race, even if they have "consensus".

> then maybe this community isn't for you

Maybe communities that are engaging in actions that break individual rights, that are protected by law, should be shut down by the government, or arrested, or fined, for breaking anti-discrimination laws.

> and if everyone uses a "consensus" to kick someone out

Then do you really want to live there? At this point, it becomes important what the rules say happens to your shares if you're kicked out, they did not explain this in the video.

> The law should come in

> that are protected by law

It does. These people aren't above the law. You are free to challenge them in court if you feel your are being discriminated against.

> should be shut down by the government, or arrested, or fined, for breaking anti-discrimination laws.

And if it happens, maybe they would be. Until they actually break the laws, by kicking someone out or otherwise breaking anti-discrimination laws, they haven't broken any laws. You are equating "their internal rules would allow them to" to them actually doing it. They aren't and haven't (she said they've never kicked anyone out and would do it only in extreme cases). So why are you so hung up about something that's never happened? Their internal rules cannot override state or federal anti-discrimination laws and you have the same recourse there as you do anywhere else: you bring them to court for breaking the law.

If that’s not enough guarantee for your comfort then the solution is to not buy a house there. Nobody is forcing anyone to live there, if they’re not comfortable with the community or it’s rules.

It would also be a bug to force people to associate closely with people they do not wish to, for whatever reason. A communal group differs from an open civic group in that people wish to live more intimately with each other than in other collectives. Its a privilege to be in the group not a right. It would also not be straightforward to determine whether particular rejections significantly involved conscious or unconscious prejudices. Not straightforward at all, yet the groups actions may be scrutinized, judged unlawful and prosecuted when appropriate by other authorities - but that is a different thing from confining it to remove the possibility of it acting unlawfully.

> for whatever reason

No, it is not a good thing for people to be allowed to using illegal discriminatory practices. Such groups should be fined or shutdown by the government legal system.

> Its a privilege to be in the group not a right

Discriminatory practices are banned in many places, and you do not have the right to discriminate based on race, for things like housing, in many places.

Such practices should have the government sent on you, who should hopefully arrest or fine you, for illegal discrimination based on race, and that is a good thing.

> judged unlawful and prosecuted when appropriate by other authorities

Ok and current anti-discrimination laws, that exist in many places, are a good thing, and if they got prosecuted for that illegal behavior, that would be good.

I'm not debating any particular discrimination laws, just reminding that they need to be applied carefuly. Do you believe that companies should not be allowed to fire people, because they might do so unfairly ? That clubs should not be allowed to eject people because they might do so unfairly? Its all rather putting the cart before the horse.

> I'm not debating any particular discrimination laws

Ok, so then you agree that are current discrimination laws are a good thing, and should be applied even to communes, such as if they discriminate illegally against certain races, even if it was done via "consensus".

I don't know about that - Im not familiar with your current discrimination laws.

Current anti-discrimination laws, in many places, make it illegal to kick someone out of where they live, based on their race, even if it was done with "consensus".

Thats what I am talking about, regarding anti-discrimination laws.

oops I deleted my comment by accident, as I replied again to your reply - which has now also gone.

Anyway I do wish you the best with your concerns. I do believe prejudging people as little as humanly possible dis/regarding race, class, everything and in carefully focused anti-discrimination laws. But I feel there is considerable danger to do more harm to human relations and attitudes than good, with laws which prosecute too bluntly or frequently between individuals relationships. I think people should resolve differences through the courts as a last resort, as legal justice is very expensive and prone to error. So that would be why I have not been answering your prompts in the affirmative, though they have been stimulating :)

All the best'

My previous reply > I expect it would often be very hard to tell in practice what the eviction is based on, as a community are unlikely to admit - sometimes even to themselves, that their conflict with the 'evictee is rooted in a particular banned prejudice. A common defense and rebuttal for a group accused of kicking someone out over their race - would be that they were aware of their race when they accepted them into the group (!) Perhaps that's why I'm not so alarmed at the possibility of people being uprooted by racists in these communities that you seem to be - where racism is a problem in them it will hardly result in evictions, it will result in barring entry. When you think cynically about what groups of others are capable of, there is no end to villainous possibilities, but others are capable of being better than we ourselves are, as well as worse.

If every one of your neighbors is prepared to make you leave - for any wrong reason, you are then isolated among them. A capacity to remain there may help somewhat, but doesn't make up for the unfortunate circumstance, that you are surrounded by people who rightly or wrongly reject you.