Most of the non religious ones I've seen have been cooperative housing developments, or fronts for health food sales and the like.
The character of the hypothetical secular idea that you raised is probably best described as direct democracy. In looking at this issue on other web sites, I am struck by the rules rules rules that have gone into implementing such experiments. I believe that this fact alone is sufficient evidence that the participants were not ready for such an experiment. If people have substantially the same values, then they don't need rules; they need character. Circumstances alter cases, and rules lead to rulers.
As soon as a community of any kind makes rules the central element and the critical component--well, they are reverting to the model they have left in the larger world, regardless of whether it is a democratic model, or a totalitarian one. They are also admitting the point that they were not at the supposed level of maturity that I have been discussing. Rules require RULERS, in whatever way, shape, or form.
Our jungle background of the male aggression/mating/leader/followers dynamic is one that makes it very difficult for most humans to conceive of a community without an alpha male, or (alternatively) a queen bee. If ALL people still require a pecking order then such a biological imperative would certainly interfere with the supposition. Clearly, all religious people require a pecking order as they still are terrified of the imaginary alpha male. But I would supppose that some people, having escaped that old animal brain mentality, would be candidates for true equality of rights and entitlement.
In my model, REASON would rule, because it does not stand above anyone as an organism (as do human RULERS), but is more like a well from which all may drink the same water. Add to that a genuine respect for the feelings of others, and a willingness to give a bit more than you take, and you find people who are able to discover answers and solutions on a daily basis without stagnating with rules and policies no longer applicable.
The amusing thing is that such an experiment, in just that way, would probably never be tried. I believe that most people who reasoned in such a way would probably also be the kind of people who would prefer to cast their lot with the entire spectrum of humanity--for a variety of reasons. This can be contrasted with the plethora of religious communities--those whose goal (substantially and usually) is to escape humanity. Thus, the very people who could make such communities work--have no interest in creating them! I think it is amusing :)
Yes, of course direct democracy can be a viable lifestyle for the right people. But I think this would be an extremely small subset of the population; and they would not desire it...yet. |
