Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Participation Agreement

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

> 1) Lenders such as banks, and insurance companies are generally very
> conservative and if they should get to read "strange" stuff they  
> may turn
> you down.

I'm still waiting for some real life examples of this. It seems to be  
an Urban Legend.

> 2) Requirements are essentially meaningless unless they are  
> enforceable i.e.
> backed up by sanctions.  Are you going to evict non-compliant  
> residents - or
> what?

This is a classic argument related to the glass half empty or the  
glass half full. The argument in relation to cohousing is that some  
people say we can't do this because there is no law saying we can and  
others who say we can because there is no law saying we can't.

The defining perspective divides cohousers on every issue. We just  
had a meeting with no agenda and no quorum to which almost as many  
people showed up to "just talk" as show up to many meetings that are  
"official." The irony is that it was a much better meeting and  
produced many more decisions than an "official" meeting. The reason  
was that the people who showed up were of the "we can do this because  
there is no law that says we can't" group.

The people who say "we can't do this because there is no  law that  
says we can" stayed home. Since there was no agenda, in their view,  
nothing could be done. That meant they weren't in the room to dampen  
discussion.

Practically none of our social behavior is covered by law and thus  
enforceable but we still expect it. We enforce codes interpersonally  
all day long. Why do we then say, we can't enforce work expectations  
therefore we can't set them?

You can set them and you can expect them. And in a million little  
ways all day long, you can enforce them. The law has nothing to do  
with it.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Coauthor with John Buck of We the People
Consenting to a Deeper Democracy
A Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods
http://www.sociocracy.info