A New Tribalism

There has been much lamentation regarding the current climate of hatred, incivility, aggression, etc. over political and cultural differences. Much of this is ascribed to a sort of primitive and unthinking tribalism, leading quickly to hatred of the perceived opposition.

The primary tribes are loosely defined, but much in evidence--and while there is occasional mention of one tribe or another taking one of "their" states and seceding, this seems to be all talk. For the most part, the primary two tribes seem to be in one of those dysfunctional relationships in which both parties hate each other, but neither will leave or allow the other to leave.

Obviously, decentralization is the solution--dissolution of the entire USA at a minimum, with further devolution most likely to provide the best results. This, of course, won't end tribalism--that's just part of the human brain--but it can reduce the tensions, if only because when tribes are left alone instead of forced to be part of the same power structure, there is much less reason for fear and anger.

For some time now I have been thinking about this tribal bent in humans--especially when also considering the (supposedly "extreme) individualism in the various elements of the Liberty Movement. Frequently newcomers to Liberty Fests and Conventions, the Free State Project in NH, the Libertarian Party gatherings, and so on are heard to say something along the lines of: "I have found my tribe!" The same occurs at the various Fandom Conventions and such--be it Furries, Harry Potter, Star Trek, Comic Books, Science Fiction, etc.

Obviously that sort of tribe is much less toxic than the standard Left and Right tribes in America.

On a bit of a different track, think about all the times folks in the Liberty Movement are asked about their solutions to various perceived and imagined problems in society, as well as "the plan" to transition from the status quo to the supposed "Stateless Utopia."

And on yet another track, consider all the difficulties arising in our society from the destruction of the family--or at least, of close family bonds--caused by various government activities and policies, as well as the simple fragmentation caused by the modern world with its increased mobility and thus diaspora from the home.

I have been unusually lucky compared to the common thread I see among so many adults in America, perhaps especially in the Liberty circles, in that I get along with and am close to everyone in my immediate (and even extended) family--although that closeness is emotional rather than geographic. As I mentioned, this seems to be a great exception, as it seems most of the people I meet are separated from their families due not only to geographic distance, but also due to death, abuse, conflict, etc.

Even with my close relationship with my family, I find the geographic distance can make seemingly simple things difficult. For example, so often I fill out forms asking for an emergency contact. Usually, I can get away with putting down something like: "Call 911." Because honestly, if I'm injured, what the hell is my Mom going to be able to do from NC, when I'm in NH? I'm divorced, so my Ex has no interest, I'm sure. I've friends in state, but even the ones I'm close to are a good piece away--and have stuff they need to do themselves.

Now, in a personal crisis--unemployment, long-term illness, some other such thing--I have the option of going home to my family, and I have friends elsewhere who could and would help, but again, I'm unusually lucky in that respect, and have also made an effort to build up a "karma bank" against such things.

Traditionally, large and extended families provided some support in such situations. Churches did so to a great extent as well, as did numerous mutual aid societies, trade guilds, and so on. Most of these things are gone today--or so far-fallen from what they were that they can no longer fulfill the same role in a modern society.

So consider this as one possible type of solution to the aforementioned problems, and many others:

Let us take the human tendency to tribalism, and form intentional--even formal--tribes.

Much like the movement towards intentional communities, intentional tribes could be very geographically based, but the don't have to be. I suspect the best sort of tribes would be ones which engaged in a strong effort to move towards a high level of geographical co-location, but it's not strictly necessary.

Now what I am proposing is a new, intentional, formalized tribalism; so what do I mean by that?

I suggest that individuals consider what they need and want in a tribe, find others with a similar list, and then develop a structure which provides the "bones" for the tribe, but which doesn't slip over into yet another sort of government. Perhaps the best way for me to illustrate my thinking is to just sort of sketch out a hypothetical tribe of this sort.

Joe Snuffy (our intrepid guinea pig), decides that his tribe--the folks who get him and he gets them, and the sort of people he can actually stand to be around a lot and close to--are Pagan Anarchists. He knows some decent Christian Anarchists, but he just finds the whole Christian-thing kind of creepy, and while he likes and agrees a lot with most of the CAs, they're just too different to really be his tribe. But in the past few years, he's become pretty close to a number of PAs he's met at various get-togethers of Pagans, and others of Anarchists, and so on.

Now, let's say Joe's an attorney--hey, there are more Anarchist attorneys than you might think. So Joe happens to be pretty knowledgeable about things like trusts and incorporation and such (I'm not--so please forgive errors on such matters in this story should they crop up). A couple of his PA friends are pretty good on Finance and investment and such, and one is a Doctor (MD), another is a mechanic, and there are a fair number of other specialties in the circle.

So Joe pitches the idea to the others: Let's formalize our "tribe" by establishing a Trust, and perhaps a few LLCs for various things. In this case, for simplicity, I'm going to say the the folks who end up in this tribe are also into the intentional community thing, and the tiny house thing. So part of Joe's idea is that the founding members of the tribe can pool resources to purchase some land--let's say they find a good deal on a decent-sized campground or mobile home park on the edge of town. The land then is held by an LLC established for the purpose, and all the members get shares in the LLC.

Once the land is acquired, the tribe builds/tows/airlifts/whatever their tiny homes into the land. A couple of spots on the land are set aside for some building projects, which over time become a small medical clinic, a 2 bay mechanic's shop right on the road complete with lifts, a workshop/makerspace, a couple of greenhouses, a few gardens, a small barn for a few pigs and goats and chickens, and a community center with a large commercial kitchen--this all takes a few years to come together, of course.

Now, it's important to understand that this is NOT A COMMUNE. Trying to run it like a commune will lead to the obvious failures such things always run up against. It's a tribal intentional community on the edge of a "normal" town. The mechanic rents the auto shop to run his business from--the rent goes into the LLC holding the property to pay off the investment, cover maintenance costs and taxes and such, etc. Any "profit" beyond that is funneled into the Tribal Trust or some such to be used as investment capital to increase the tribal wealth (which is separate from the wealth of the individual members, who at the same time are shareholders in the tribal holdings...). The Doc also rents the clinic, and runs his practice from there on a similar deal. And there are (depending on the specialties in the tribe) other similar arrangements.

Now, the mechanic also provides services to the members of the tribe (perhaps at a reduced rate--or not), and maybe provides services to a small fleet--a few extra vehicles available for use by members of the tribe who don't have their own (rental fees for those who can afford it, and maybe no cost to the odd member in need). The Doc is the GP for the tribe, and is able to provide very low-cost basic medical care to the tribe because everything is done in-house and essentially on a cash basis--a sort of internal self-insurance plan. And, as a corporation, the tribe is able to negotiate a good deal on supplemental medical insurance to cover other things. But most of the Doc's practice is likely folks outside the tribe, and he deals with them as is usual.

Some of the tribe don't have regular outside jobs, and maybe a few mostly garden and take care of critters, providing some food for the tribe, and maybe operating a farm stand or running a truck to the farmer's market, or dealing with local restaurants. Some of the tribe provide child care and education to the children of the tribe, and perhaps a few outsiders as well... I think much of the picture ought to be clear.

The bigger the tribe, the more specialties available, the more resources brought to bear, etc. But keep in mind Dunbar's Number--you don't want the tribe to be bigger than between 80-120 people. I'd suggest even smaller--much smaller. Because there's a few things the tribe--even if it isn't following Joe Snuffy's example and starting a tribal intentional community--can do that become problematic if the tribe is too large.

The tribe can, as previously mentioned, negotiate with insurance companies to get group rates for its members, and can even take care of much of what is normally covered within the tribe, perhaps even to the point of essentially self-insuring. The tribe can provide a designated emergency contact for people--it's an almost inconsequential thing, right up until the moment it isn't. The tribe can provide a "social safety net" to its members in need that is greatly superior to the government--with the ability to tailor solutions to the needs of the individual, and provide the needed kick in the ass upon occasion. Perhaps the tribe sets up a sort of credit union, and provided microloans and such. And the child care and "homeschooling" possibilities are tremendous--especially for young families trying to climb the ladder (or dig themselves out of a hole). And so on.

It's much easier to organize an apprenticeship within such a tribal group. If the tribe has some good finance types, pooling some investment capital to build individual wealth is much easier than going it alone--especially if a portion of the pooled capital is invested in tribal member start-ups.

That ought to be enough (likely more than) for most folks to see some of the benefits. A lot of things are easier if an intentional community is involved as well--but that's also pretty ambitious, and holds a lot of potential pitfalls. But as I've said, the tribe can do much of this without such a tribal location--the important thing is to actually get the right folks together and form the tribe.

Now there are a lot of things to avoid as well. As mentioned, Communes don't work. Sure, there are the odd exceptions, with small numbers and for short times, but best to avoid that sort of thing. It doesn't need to be like Rand's "Galt's Gulch" in which no one does things for each other without monetary compensation, but for the most part it is best to avoid the feeling of being entitled to the services of another member of the tribe--besides, it makes the accounting simpler.

I would strongly suggest that in any such tribe, all the important stuff is decided by Unanimous Consent. It's fine to delegate authority for certain projects to an individual or a small group, but government is the thing we want to avoid--build in safeguards to prevent it. Obviously, you don't want the tribe to be a cult of any sort--shared beliefs are fine, but look at the list of the things that define a cult--and stay away from those. Leaving the tribe needs to be easy, and a quick and painless method for leaving, to include a payoff of shares and accounting for property needs to be established right from the start.

I would suggest that a pretty hard numerical limit be established for tribe members, and that new members be added very carefully and after long consideration. I suggest a single black ball means no membership sort of ultimate vote, after a long probationary period. I'd say a process of at least a year of active association with the tribe before the final decision is made.

Now--with families, I'd suggest that just because Joe Snuffy is a member of the tribe, that shouldn't mean his wife is automatically a member of the tribe as well. It's great if that can work out--and perhaps family members of tribal members get preference for membership--but I'd suggest that partners/spouses be considered sort of auxiliary members, and the same for children until they are capable of making the choice to become willing members of the tribe as well.

Anyway, I think that's more than enough for a basic sketch. Y'all should have the idea. I don't claim this is any sort of a perfect solution for everything--far from it. But I think for many Liberty-folk it can be a workable and rewarding sort of voluntary organization, which is possible to implement now, can support and protect members through almost any sort of a transitional period between the present status quo and an eventual stateless society, and will still have such value in a stateless society.

Honestly, while I think the idea has a lot of merit, and appeals to me personally, I can't say I'm entirely sold on it myself. Still needs a lot of consideration. I hope a lot of folks who find the idea somewhat interesting will contribute ideas and point out potential pitfalls.

Meanwhile, I need to consider who I want in my tribe--and if they might let me in theirs.