Tag Archives: freedom

Freedom of Speech Essay – 2160 Words – StudyMode

Posted: October 15, 2016 at 5:23 am

Freedom of Speech

With varying opinions and beliefs, our society needs to have unlimited freedom to speak about any and everything that concerns us in order to continually improve our society. Those free speech variables would be speech that creates a positive, and not negative, scenario in both long-terms and short-terms. Dictionary.com defines Freedom of Speech as, the right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc. Freedom of speech is also known as free speech or freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is also known as freedom of expression because a persons beliefs and thoughts can also be expressed in other ways other than speech. These ways could be art, writings, songs, and other forms of expression. If speaking freely and expressing ourselves freely is supposed to be without any consequence, then why are there constant law suits and consequences for people who do. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression should be exactly what they mean. Although most people believe that they can speak about anything without there being consequences, this is very untrue. One of those spoken things that have consequences is speaking about the president in such a negative way that it sends red flags about your intentions. Because of the high terrorist alerts, people have to limit what they say about bombs, 9/11, and anything they may say out of anger about our government or country. In the documentary called Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore spoke of a man who went to his gym and had a conversation with some of his gym buddies in a joking way. He made a joke about George W. Bush bombing us in oil profits. The next morning the FBI was at his front door because someone had reported what he freely spoke. Although the statements might have been derogatory, they were still his opinion, and he had a right to say whatever he wanted to about the president. In the past seven years there have been laws made that have obstructed our freedom of speech, and our right to privacy. Many of us have paused in the recent years when having a conversation because we are afraid that we are eavesdropped on. Even the eavesdropping would not be a problem if it were not for fear that there would be some legal action taken because of what you say. As mentioned in TalkLeft about the awkwardness in our current day conversations, We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered. This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. And it’s our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives. Because of tighter security and defense by the United States there have been visible and invisible changes to the meaning of freedom of speech and expression. One wrong word or thing could lead to a disastrous consequence.

Another topic that has been limited for a long period of time is religion. Speaking about religion in certain places is severely frowned upon. One of those places is schools. Since I could remember, schools have always had a rule that certain things could not be spoken of related to religion. If they were, that person could receive consequences. As a young child I could never understand why students and staff members could not openly express their love for God. I also thought that prayer was not permitted in schools when they are. Prayers are permitted in school, but not in classrooms during class time. Also wearing religious symbols or clothing is banned in schools. If we are free to speak our thoughts and feelings, then how are we banned to do these things? It is like saying that we are free to speak whatever we want, but we may not say anything. In the article A…

Let your classmates know about this document and more at StudyMode.com

{“hostname”:”studymode.com”,”essaysImgCdnUrl”:”//images-study.netdna-ssl.com/pi/”,”useDefaultThumbs”:true,”defaultThumbImgs”:[“//stm-study.netdna-ssl.com/stm/images/placeholders/default_paper_1.png”,”//stm-study.netdna-ssl.com/stm/images/placeholders/default_paper_2.png”,”//stm-study.netdna-ssl.com/stm/images/placeholders/default_paper_3.png”,”//stm-study.netdna-ssl.com/stm/images/placeholders/default_paper_4.png”,”//stm-study.netdna-ssl.com/stm/images/placeholders/default_paper_5.png”],”thumb_default_size”:”160×220″,”thumb_ac_size”:”80×110″,”isPayOrJoin”:false,”essayUpload”:false,”site_id”:1,”autoComplete”:false,”isPremiumCountry”:false,”logPixelPath”:”//www.smhpix.com/pixel.gif”,”tracking_url”:”//www.smhpix.com/pixel.gif”,”essay”:{“essayId”:33424465,”categoryName”:”Fiction”,”categoryParentId”:”17″,”currentPage”:1,”format”:”text”,”pageMeta”:{“text”:{“startPage”:1,”endPage”:6,”pageRange”:”1-6″,”totalPages”:6}},”access”:”premium”,”title”:”Freedom of Speech Essay”,”additionalIds”:[9,103,2,3],”additional”:[“Entertainment”,”Entertainment/Film”,”Awards u0026 Events”,”Business u0026 Economy”],”loadedPages”:{“html”:[],”text”:[1,2,3,4,5,6]}},”user”:null,”canonicalUrl”:”http://www.studymode.com/essays/Freedom-Of-Speech-Essay-223535.html”,”pagesPerLoad”:50,”userType”:”member_guest”,”ct”:10,”ndocs”:”1,500,000″,”pdocs”:”6,000″,”cc”:”10_PERCENT_1MO_AND_6MO”,”signUpUrl”:”https://www.studymode.com/signup/”,”joinUrl”:”https://www.studymode.com/join”,”payPlanUrl”:”/checkout/pay/100241″,”upgradeUrl”:”/checkout/upgrade”,”freeTrialUrl”:”https://www.studymode.com/signup/?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.studymode.com%2Fcheckout%2Fpay%2Ffree-trialu0026bypassPaymentPage=1″,”showModal”:”get-access”,”showModalUrl”:”https://www.studymode.com/signup/?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.studymode.com%2Fjoin”,”joinFreeUrl”:”/essays/?newuser=1″,”siteId”:1,”facebook”:{“clientId”:”306058689489023″,”version”:”v2.2″,”language”:”en_US”},”analytics”:{“googleId”:”UA-32718321-1″}}

See more here:
Freedom of Speech Essay – 2160 Words – StudyMode

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Freedom of Speech Essay – 2160 Words – StudyMode

Should there be restrictions on freedom of speech? | Debate.org

Posted: at 5:23 am

People have a right to say what ever they want to say. No one has the right to stop them. You may not like some of the opinions people voice, or the words that they use, but this is absolutely no reason to have the government trample people’s natural rights.

Arresting those protesting on private “no trespassing” property is not a denial of free speech. I really get irked about that kind of misrepresentation and people crying over first amendment rights. Death threats are not a form of free speech. They are a threat. Calling a soldier that has never done anything but served his country in good faith a “baby killer” is defamation of character. You say that to someone that is being tried or investigated, that is a gray area. You say that to someone that has been convicted it is free speech. Protest that the government should give amnesty to illegals? It’s an opinion, and free speech as long as you don’t do it on my private property.

It’s when freedom of speech isn’t freedom of speech that the problem arises. “Hate Speech” is freedom of speech to the extent that the language used does not incite or encourage violence or violation of the law. There is a huge difference in toting a sign that says “No more (fill in the blank) and “Yes, send us more dead (fill in the blank)”. One shows your lack of tolerance and opinion that there should be no more whatever. The second shows distinct encouragement for the acceptance of violence against the group being protested.

Freedom of speech is NOT the ability to say whatever you feel like when you feel like it where you feel like it. Yelling BOMB in a theater is not freedom of speech. Advertising or protesting you wish someone dead or are looking forward to seeing a group of people dead is not freedom of speech. Reporting that gets people killed is not freedom of speech. Profanity & Sexual suggestions are not free speech.

When the government censors certain “unallowable” opnions, and at the same times pretends to protect “freedom of speech”, it is essentially saying “you are free to say whatever you want, as long as you don’t say this.” This is the same principle that exists in even the most totalitarian societies; saying that that society has “free speech” becomes meaningless.

Freedom of speech helps the world to change. Without this kind of expression, the world wouldn’t be aware of all the problems we have, and wouldn’t help to change them. For example, with the Charlie Hebdo problem going around, the world and France got aware of the problem of religion, as well as malala or nelson mandela. Those kind of person broke the limit of speech and it helped to change life positively.

Freedom of speech is not the same as promoting violence. Freedom of speech is not violating the law, promoting violence or ‘waiting (fill in blank) dead’. Everyone has a right to voice their opinions and believes. If the government takes away that right, then that is the starting point for being able to neglect other human rights.

In the United States, where I live, we allow citizens to be free from government interference for speaking. This is one of our cherished rights, so much so that it’s the very first amendment to our Constitution. However, this right does not extend to private businesses or individuals, who are free to penalize you all they want for saying stupid, damaging, or inflammatory things. This is a public-private balance that is appropriate, and additional restrictions are not required.

I disagree with a lot of people on a lot things either being religion, politics, hate speech, and so on they should not be silenced. They have just as much of a right, to say what they believe. That’s we have the right to free speech. Just because I don’t like or agree means it should be restricted. This also goes into if you say what you mean freely, you’re going to have to deal with the backlash. The thing is free speech either get’s people on your side and look smart, or have everyone hate you.

Free speech is the corner stone of a free society. All ideas must be heard no matter how crazy and all ideas must be criticized. If we start burning books because we find them offensive; it means anyone can shout down dissent by saying they are offended. Tell me this when has an idea which is exempt from criticism been good. It is important that we realize that saying this can be censorship should never be used to combat bad ideas. If our ideology is so much better then the person we wish to censor; we should have no such problem debunking there theories; because even if we believe that the person we want censored is a complete monster. Denying anyone there basic human rights turns us into monsters.

It’s people’s freedom. Most of us living in America take for granted this privilege. Corrupt countries have taken away this privilege, and that’s why they won’t change. A person’s voice can be the difference of life and death for a person, so that’s why I think it’s necessary. Two words

I don’t think so that there should be restriction because what is going in the mind of an individual we don’t know, if he suffering from any deficiency and he speaks so that the thing on which we can secure him we can at-least guide. There should b freedom of speech.

See the original post here:
Should there be restrictions on freedom of speech? | Debate.org

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Should there be restrictions on freedom of speech? | Debate.org

Debate: Freedom of Speech | Debate.org

Posted: at 5:23 am

To begin, I am greatly happy that you, Mdal, joined my debate. It appears that your arguments appeals to logic, which is, in my opinion the most persuasive type of argument. I will primarily be appealing to logic, however will also touch on the ideals of value, as it is one of the main moral reasons I support this idea. I have also adapted the format of my arguments to suit your style.

Voltaire, an enlightenment thinker, regarded with as intuitive and influential a mind as Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Locke. All influential people who host beliefs that influenced the framers of the Constitution, and all of which created ideals that support, and influence my own belief on restricting the rights of the first amendment to hate group’s gathering in public areas.

I agree with your definition of what the constitution is advancing us towards, “a stable, liberty driven, peaceful, prosperous state” and would in turn like to define hate groups as any groups that gather with the intentions of breeding fear, terror, hate, or violence towards any particular group of people (defined as a group of similar races, religion, or belief [such as sexual orientation].) More specifically, I will be focusing on, and discussing the two groups you mentioned, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Aryan Brotherhood.

Now, before I begin my own arguments, I will answer your question: “who gets to say what is ok and what isn’t?”

I have long meditated in search of a proper way for our nation to adapt to such a monumental change as I have proposed. The only way that I could think of was to add a fourth branch to our current system of checks and balances. This branch would be in charge of adapting the constitution to better suit the nation as it evolves (including any exceptions the members of this branch deem necessary to create.) They would have equal power to the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and would their adjustments would be checked by both the legislative branch (requiring a majority vote as opposed to the current two thirds vote necessary to create an amendment) and the judicial branch to make sure that any and all changes and exceptions created by this new branch follow the main ideals that are upheld within our nation, and do not violate the main intentions of the framers ideals. I realize that this is also a very controversial topic, and would love to hear any and all concerns you have regarding this issue; however, I do not want this to distract us from the main topic of our debate.

Rebuttal #1: In response to the “slippery-slope” argument Logic: The system of checks and balances was created in order to stop one particular group from gaining power. Adapting this system by creating another branch should quite any worries you had about the “slippery-slope” that may occur, as the extent of the branches power will be modified by two other branches, the Legislative and the Judicial. Therefore, the new branch will not be able to abuse this power, and they, because of these restrictions, would not be able to quiet the entire, “market place of ideas.”

Rebuttal #2: In response to the argument that this will limit the market place of ideas Logic: You brought up the argument that if we allow bad ideas to mix with good ideas, then the good ideas will “rise to the top.” In response to this, I would like to bring up the case of Osama Bin Laden, a terrorist who has, what are commonly assumed to be “bad ideas.” Because of Bin Laden’s influential abilities, his bad ideas were able to rise above the good ideas, and eventually led to a great influx of new members into terrorist beliefs, and further led to the tragic destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001.

I am in no way saying that the KKK or the Aryan Brotherhood has equal power to Terrorists, but I am instead proposing that they have similar bad ideas focused on fear and hatred towards a group of people. If the KKK were to gain an influential leader (horrendous, but influential none-the-less) as Osama Bin Laden, who’s to say whether or not our current small national terrorist group the KKK would turn into a world-wide terrorist organization such as that created by Osama Bin Laden?

It is better to regulate the public meetings of these organizations now, as opposed to later when their power may exceed that of the government they are encompassed by.

Rebuttal #3: In response to the argument that Free speech keeps our government accountable. Logic: As the government is not a group of people regulated by race, religion, or belief (refer to definition of groups of people). And the branch will only have the power to regulate hate groups from publicly discussing (note I am not restricting their right to gather in privacy, purely in public) their ideas, the proposition will have no effect on those who wish to speak out against the government.

Now onto my main argument:

Argument: We are currently not fully acknowledging people’s natural rights Logic: According to the natural rights originally proposed, and supported by enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau all people are born with the right to live his/her life any way he/she likes without causing physical harm to another individual, directly or indirectly.

What I question within this right is the restriction, “without causing physical harm to another individual, directly or indirectly.” I concede that I am working under the assumption that hate groups gather with a common goal to assert their superiority (through violence or terror) over a different group of people. I also concede that I work under the assumption that mental harm can become so intense that it can eventually harm a person physically (I only state this because this was not common knowledge around the time of the enlightenment, and therefore was not included in their right.) I believe that these are fairly common assumptions, and therefore will continue with my argument. If we allow groups that have a goal of asserting superiority over a specific group of people, whether they currently act upon this goal, or whether they plan on accomplishing this goal in the future, they either directly or indirectly threaten the safety of others.

I also could go on, however do not wish to state all of my arguments in the first round of our five round discussion.

Thank you again for accepting this debate, so far it proves to be quite promising.

I will first respond to tsmart’s rebuttals to my 3 opening arguments, from there I will counter tsmart’s single argument, finally I must respond to the possible creation of a 4th branch of government as the actor created by tsmart in this case. Though I too do not want this debate dramatically side tracked by a debate about the actor who will create the proposed new laws set forth by tsmart. However as he uses this new 4th branch as an answer to my 3rd argument it has become very important to the core of this debate and will thus be discussed when answering Tsmart’s first rebuttal.

With this signposting finished, lets get to some arguments.

Rebuttal #1: Tsmart’s Rebuttal assures us that through the creation of the 4th branch of government who’s sole job is two interpret freedom of speech, and decide what is and what is not allowable under our new laws which limit certain types of speech. Tsmart’s exact quote of what the 4th branch of government would be is: “This branch would be in charge of adapting the constitution to better suit the nation as it evolves (including any exceptions the members of this branch deem necessary to create.) They would have equal power to the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and would their adjustments would be checked by both the legislative branch (requiring a majority vote as opposed to the current two thirds vote necessary to create an amendment) and the judicial branch to make sure that any and all changes and exceptions created by this new branch follow the main ideals that are upheld within our nation, and do not violate the main intentions of the framers ideals.”

My response: Whooooooo eeee! Where to start on this one?

To begin with it seems at first blush that the 4th branch is going to usurp what has been the power of the Supreme Court, namely interpreting the constitution. However upon closer examination it seems that Tsmart actually has created a body whose job is much more than merely interpreting the constitution, it is actually a body whose job is to CHANGE the constitution. So basically this new body is invented to abridge and thus destroy the power of the 1st amendment (one of the most important amendments in our constitution, one who has been upheld through countless court cases) take the power of the states and congress (the governmental structures who usually keep all of the checks and balances on the creation of new amendments)and given it all to this new 4th branch. Basically we have reorganized the very makeup of American government for the express reason of censoring people. *****In a cost benefit analysis the cost of destabilizing the government by shifting around the powers set in our government by our founding fathers to a new, strange, and untested power structure for the possibly non-existent benefit of censoring hate groups seems dramatically unbalanced. Under this cost benefit analysis it seems as if any marginal benefits we might get from censorship are DRAMATICALLY outweighed by the dangers of the radical upsetting of our governmental structure and thus shows that the CON’s proposed solutions just aren’t worth the trouble.

Rebuttal #2: In response to my argument for an open Market Place of Ideas (something we have now but will lose if we lose Freedom of Speech) Tsmart brings up the example of Osoma Bin Laden and how his ideas have risen to the top in some places and beat out better ideas, so we should instead keep these sort of ideas out of the public’s purview.

My Response: Tsmart actually just proved my point by using the example of Osoma Bin Laden, tell me readers (and Tsmart) have you been convinced by listening to Bin Laden on our television? It wasn’t hidden from us. Everyone in the US is allowed to listen to what Bin Laden has to say, yet HERE in the US where the market place of ideas flourishes Bin Laden’s brand of extremism hasn’t gained a foothold. The places where he is much more popular don’t have the myriad of view points like we have the capacity of getting here in the States, instead in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other nations in the Middle East we find a correlation between the free-er the speech, the less extremist the views in the country. This is because when the market place of ideas is allowed to work, people are able to make well informed decisions and that usually leads them away from extremist views and towards the center ground when considering an issue. Thus we can see how Tsmart’s example just proves exactly how important the market place of ideas really is and how important it is to keep from abridging the first amendment which is SO key to keeping the market place of ideas viable.

Rebuttal #3: I stated that freedom of speech is a huge check on the government. Tsmart says: “…the branch will only have the power to regulate hate groups from publicly discussing (note I am not restricting their right to gather in privacy, purely in public) their ideas, the proposition will have no effect on those who wish to speak out against the government.” My Response: What about the hate groups Tsmart? What happens if an incredibly racist, cruel, mean, hate filled Neo Nazi has a well conceived critique of the the government, but wants to express this brilliant critique in hate filled language? His speech, though offensive to you and me, will also give a benefit to the society because he will point out something about the government which needs to be looked at. Re-reading your quote you say that the hate group will be unable to discuss their ideas in public, what if their ideas have to do with the government? Is this a new exception? Are Hate groups allowed to talk about the government? You see how restricting even a small part of Freedom of Speech has huge ramifications for everyone in our society? Rather than risk the benefit of one of the best checks on our government (freedom of speech) we should play it safe and not try to silence people we don’t agree with.

On to Tsmart’s argument of expanded natural rights, His claim is that if people are railed against in public by hate groups they may be harmed mentally and that may eventually lead to physical harm. Thus we should protect these minorities and targeted groups from the hate groups.

Response to Tsmart’s Argument: Tsmart, it seems as though you have come to an overreaching understanding of what the government is supposed to do in situations like this. Your solution is to take preemptive action by taking away freedoms from people who might threaten others. However it seems as though the goal you are trying to accomplish is to make certain that the targeted minority groups ARE safe as well as help them FEEL safe. This goal can be met much better by an investment in anti-hate laws which will increase the punishment for hate crimes, or better yet you could increase the capabilities of the police and thus keep extremist groups like the hate organizations in line. However abridging freedom of speech is not the best, or even a decent, way of defending targeted minority groups.

Read more:
Debate: Freedom of Speech | Debate.org

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Debate: Freedom of Speech | Debate.org

Economic Freedom: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics …

Posted: October 13, 2016 at 5:34 am

For well over a hundred years, the economic world has been engaged in a great intellectual debate. On one side of this debate have been those philosophers and economists who advocate an economic system based on private property and free marketsor what one might call economic freedom. The key ingredients of economic freedom are personal choice, voluntary exchange, freedom to compete in markets, and protection of person and property. Institutions and policies are consistent with economic freedom when they allow voluntary exchange and protect individuals and their property.

Governments can promote economic freedom by providing a legal structure and a law-enforcement system that protect the property rights of owners and enforce contracts in an evenhanded manner. However, economic freedom also requires governments to refrain from taking peoples property and from interfering with personal choice, voluntary exchange, and the freedom to enter and compete in labor and product markets. When governments substitute taxes, government expenditures, and regulations for personal choice, voluntary exchange, and market coordination, they reduce economic freedom. Restrictions that limit entry into occupations and business activities also reduce economic freedom.

Adam Smith was one of the first economists to argue for a version of economic freedom, and he was followed by a distinguished line of thinkers that includes John Stuart Mill, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman, as well as economists such as Murray Rothbard.

On the other side of this debate are people hostile to economic freedom who instead argue for an economic system characterized by centralized economic planning and state control of the means of production. Advocates of an expanded role for the state include Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx and such twentieth-century advocates as Abba Lerner, John Kenneth Galbraith, Michael Harrington, and Robert Heilbroner. These scholars argue that free markets lead to monopolies, chronic economic crises, income inequality, and increasing degradation of the poor, and that centralized political control of peoples economic lives avoids these problems of the marketplace. They deem economic life simply too important to be left up to the decentralized decisions of individuals.

In the early twentieth century, state control grew as communism and fascism spread. In the United States, the New Deal significantly expanded the role of the state in peoples economic lives. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, economic freedom staged a comeback, with deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts. Of course, the major increase in economic freedom came with the fall of the Soviet Union. Today, the advocates of freedom dominate the debate. In fact, one major socialist, the late Robert Heilbroner, believed that the advocates of freedom have won (see socialism).

Substantial evidence has informed the debate. Indeed, the stark differences in the standards of living of people in economically freer systems compared with those in less-free systems have become more and more obvious: North versus South Korea, East versus West Germany, Estonia versus Finland, and Cubans living in Miami versus Cubans living in Cuba are examples. In each case, people in the freer economy have better lives, in virtually every way, than their counterparts in the less-free economies.

The above comparisons are suggestive. But is it possible to find a relationship between economic freedom and prosperity over a wider range of nations? In the 1980s, scholars began to measure and rate economies based on their degree of economic freedom. Organizations such as Freedom House, the Heritage Foundation, and the Fraser Institute, as well as individual scholars, published economic freedom indexes attempting to quantify economic freedom. They came up with an ambitious, and necessarily blunt, measure.

In 1996, the Fraser Institute, along with a network of other think tanks, began publishing the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) annual reports, which present an economic freedom index for more than 120 nations. Using data from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Global Competitiveness Report, International Country Risk Guide, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and others, the report rates countries on a zero-to-ten scale. Higher scores indicate greater economic freedom. The overall index is based on ratings in five broad areas. Counting the various subcomponents, the EFW index uses thirty-eight distinct pieces of data. Each subcomponent is placed on a scale from zero to ten that reflects the range of the underlying data. The component ratings within each area are averaged to derive ratings for each of the five areas. In turn, the summary rating is the average of the five area ratings. The five major areas are:

Size of government. To get high ratings in this area, governments must tax and spend modestly, and marginal tax rates must be relatively low. While governments are important in protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and providing some services, as governments grow they inevitably infringe on peoples economic freedom to engage in trade and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Sound money. It might not be clear at first why this is a measure of freedom rather than just a measure of good economic policy. But money would likely be sound if the government did not have a legal monopoly over the money supply (see competing money supplies and gold standard). Therefore sound money is a measure of how much the government refrains from abusing its monopoly power. To get high ratings here, a countrys inflation must be low and stable, and the government must permit people to own currencies of other nations.

Property rights and rule of law. This area measures the consistency of a countrys legal system with the protection of property, enforcement of contracts, and evenhanded application of the law. This is perhaps the most important area of economic freedom, as economic freedom requires that people be secure in their persons and physical property; it also requires a judicial system that enforces contractual agreements fairly.

International trade. Countries that refrain from enacting protectionist tariffs, quotas, and capital controls get higher ratings in this area (see international trade). Economic freedom means that people can engage in trade with any person of their choosing. If the government taxes or otherwise prevents people from buying or selling with people in other countries, it reduces their freedom.

Regulation. Regulations such as interest-rate controls (usury laws), restrictions on bank ownership by foreigners, minimum wages, military conscription, business licensing, and price controls are included. Such controls and regulations violate the principles of economic freedom. To get high ratings, countries must refrain from such regulations, leaving people free to set prices, open businesses, and trade.

Any attempt to measure freedom on this basis inevitably omits the details. Because all these factors are weighted equally, two countries could have identical indexes in different ways: one might have high taxes but a good rule of law, while another may have low taxes but a poor legal system. An economic freedom index allows us to make broad comparisons among countries, but the index is a blunt measure.

What is the freest economy in the world? Hong Kong. Hong Kong has relatively low taxes, a good legal system, sound money, free trade, and minimal regulations; and it has had these institutions and policies in place for several decades. Other highly rated countries include Singapore, the United States, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Table 1 shows the economic freedom ratings of selected countries for 1980, 1990, and 2002.

Singapore is an interesting case because it exhibits an odd combination of high economic freedom and considerable political and civil repression. Although economic freedom and political freedom tend to go together, especially in the long run, Singapore is an exception. It will be worth watching to see if Singapore can maintain this situation. Many scholars believe that economic freedom and political repression are an unsustainable combination.

Some countries, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States, consistently registered high ratings throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Germanys economic freedom rating has also been quite steady. Germanys rating in 2002 was 7.3, compared with 7.0 in 1980. Because several other countries have made substantial improvements, however, Germanys ranking has declined, receding to twenty-second in 2002 from fifth in 1980. Likewise, because other countries have improved, Frances ranking fell to forty-fourth from twenty-eighth in 1980.

Looking at some absolute scores, one can note a clear trend worldwide toward economic liberalization since 1980. The highest-rated African nation, Botswana, increased its rating from 5.0 in 1980 to 7.4 in 2002 and now ranks eighteenth in the world. Also in Africa, Mauritiuss rating jumped from 4.7 in 1980 to 6.1 in 1990 and 7.2 in 2002. In Latin America, Chiles rating improved from 5.3 in 1980 to 7.3 in 2002, making it the highest-rated country in its region.

Among developed countries we also have seen some big reformers. Irelands rating jumped from 6.2 in 1980 to 7.8 in 2002. The United Kingdom was a big gainer during the Thatcher years, when its rating rose from 6.1 in 1980 to 7.7 in 1990 and, ultimately, to 8.2. Similarly, New Zealands economic reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s caused its rating to increase from 6.1 in 1980 to 8.2 in 2002. While these gains are not the largest seen in the world, they do show that well-established developed economies can implement significant economic liberalization.

The worlds two largest economies by population, India and China, both have low ratings. But both have made tremendous strides toward more economic freedom. Chinas rating increased from 3.8 to 5.7, and Indias rose from 4.9 to 6.3. While their current ratings are still low by world standards, these improvements in economic freedom have been quite substantial; both countries economies are growing rapidly as a result.

Among the former Soviet and centrally planned economies, some have succeeded greatly in increasing economic freedom. Estonia now ranks thirteenth in the world, having instituted nearly complete free trade, a stable monetary policy, and considerable fiscal restraint. In 1995, it was ranked eighty-first. Meanwhile, some of these nations have shown little progress; Russia and Romania, for instance, rank near the bottom of the list and show few signs of improvement. In these countries, the near inability of the legal system to protect property and fairly enforce contractsand the corruption this inevitably ensuresis a particularly big problem from the standpoint of both economic freedom and economic growth.

Only a few countries have moved away from economic freedom in the last twenty years. Zimbabwe has recently taken a turn for the worse as the government continues to attack property rights and impose tight controls on economic activity. Venezuela has steadily declined in its rating (and ranking). In the early 1970s, Venezuela ranked in the top twenty, but by 2002 it had fallen to the very bottom.

An economic freedom index allows researchers to examine the empirical relationships between economic freedom and other desirable social outcomes. The big question is: Do countries that exhibit greater degrees of economic freedom perform better than those that do not?

Much scholarly research has been and continues to be done to see if the index correlates with various measures of the good society: higher incomes, economic growth, income equality, gender equality, life expectancy, and so on. While there is scholarly debate about the exact nature of these relationships, the results are uniform: measures of economic freedom relate positively with these factors.

The figures that follow illustrate the simple relationship between the economic freedom index and various measures of economic and social progress. These figures indicate the relationships that more scholarly studies have found, but they are not conclusive evidence. Economic growth, for example, appears to be related to both the level of economic freedom and changes in the level of economic freedom as well as to investment in physical and human capital. The simple graphs on the next page are no substitute for more scholarly work. Nevertheless, these simple relationships are a starting point for examining the links between economic freedom and economic results.

Figure 1 shows the economic freedom ratings related to GDP per capita. The chart organizes the world into five quintiles ordered from the countries with the least economic freedom to the countries with the most. As economic freedom increases, so does average income.

The level of economic development at any point in time is, of course, the result of the accumulation of capital and technology over a long period. Figure 2 illustrates the correlation between economic growth (rates of change in GDP per capita) between 1980 and 2002 and the average level of the economic freedom index since 1980. Figure 3 illustrates the large improvements in life span associated with greater economic freedom.

Figure 1Economic Freedom and GDP per Capita

Figure 2Economic Freedom and Economic Growth

Figure 3Economic Freedom and Life Expectancy

Figure 4Economic Freedom and the Income Level of the Poor

While there is no clear evidence that economic freedom creates greater income inequality, there is clear evidence that lowest-income people in freer countries are better off than their counterparts in less free countries. Figure 4 shows the average income level of the poorest tenth of the population by economic freedom quintile. Clearly, as Adam Smith recognized more than 230 years ago, economic freedom and the economic prosperity it brings work to the advantage of the poor.

As time goes on, these measures of economic freedom will improve and our understanding of the relationship between private property and free markets and economic performance will similarly improve. But in the great debate between economic freedom and political planning, the evidence is increasingly clear. Economic freedom leads to better economic results.

Robert A. Lawson is the George H. Moor Chair and Professor of Economics at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. He is a coauthor of the Economic Freedom of the World annual reports.

Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Messick, Richard E., ed. World Survey of Economic Freedom 19951996: A Freedom House Study. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1996.

Scully, G. W., and D. Slottje. Ranking Economic Liberty Across Countries. Public Choice 69, no. 2 (1991): 121152.

Excerpt from:

Economic Freedom: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics …

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on Economic Freedom: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics …

Annotation 1 – First Amendment – FindLaw

Posted: September 22, 2016 at 7:46 pm


An Overview

Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ”Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ”Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .” 3 It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ”respecting” phraseology. 4 Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, 5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.

Scholarly Commentary .–The explication of the religion clauses by the scholars has followed a restrained sense of their meaning. Story, who thought that ”the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice,” 6 looked upon the prohibition simply as an exclusion from the Federal Government of all power to act upon the subject. ”The situation . . . of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.” 7

”Probably,” Story also wrote, ”at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.” 8 The object, then, of the religion clauses in this view was not to prevent general governmental encouragement of religion, of Christianity, but to prevent religious persecution and to prevent a national establishment. 9

This interpretation has long since been abandoned by the Court, beginning, at least, with Everson v. Board of Education, 10 in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ”aid one religion” or ”prefer one religion over another,” but as well those that ”aid all religions.” Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is ”preferential” governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. 11 The Court has not responded, though Justice Souter in a major concurring opinion did undertake to rebut the argument and to restate the Everson position. 12

Court Tests Applied to Legislation Affecting Religion .–Before considering the development of the two religion clauses by the Supreme Court, one should notice briefly the tests developed by which religion cases are adjudicated by the Court. While later cases rely on a series of rather well-defined, if difficult-to-apply, tests, the language of earlier cases ”may have [contained] too sweeping utterances on aspects of these clauses that seemed clear in relation to the particular cases but have limited meaning as general principles.” 13 It is well to recall that ”the purpose [of the religion clauses] was to state an objective, not to write a statute.” 14

In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ”a wall of separation between Church and State.” 15 In Reynolds v. United States, 16 Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as ”almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.” In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jefferson’s metaphor for substantial guidance. 17 But a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on governmental action. 18 The concept of neutrality itself is ”a coat of many colors,” 19 and three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were part of the same formulation. ”The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.” 20 The third test is whether the governmental program results in ”an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . [T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.” 21 In 1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger’s opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 22 and are frequently referred to by reference to that case name.

Although at one time accepted in principle by all of the Justices, 23 the tests have sometimes been difficult to apply, 24 have recently come under direct attack by some Justices, 25 and with increasing frequency have not been applied at all by the Court. 26 While continued application is uncertain, the Lemon tests nonetheless have served for twenty years as the standard measure of Establishment Clause validity and explain most of the Court’s decisions in the area. 27 As of the end of the Court’s 1991-92 Term, there was not yet a consensus among Lemon critics as to what substitute test should be favored. 28 Reliance on ”coercion” for that purpose would eliminate a principal distinction between establishment cases and free exercise cases and render the Establishment Clause largely duplicative of the Free Exercise Clause. 29

Justice O’Connor has suggested that it is inappropriate to try to shoehorn all Establishment cases into one test, and has called instead for recognition that different contexts may call for different approaches. Supp.1 For example, the Justice proposes that cases involving government ”speech” on religious topics be judged by an endorsement test that would invalidate government actions only if a reasonable observer would perceive the action as an endorsement or disapproval of religious belief. Supp.2

Government Neutrality in Religious Disputes .–One value that both clauses of the religion section serve is to enforce governmental neutrality in deciding controversies arising out of religious disputes. Schism sometimes develops within churches or between a local church and the general church, resulting in secession or expulsion of one faction or of the local church. A dispute over which body is to have control of the property of the church will then often be taken into the courts. It is now established that both religion clauses prevent governmental inquiry into religious doctrine in settling such disputes, and instead require courts simply to look to the decision-making body or process in the church and to give effect to whatever decision is officially and properly made.

The first such case was Watson v. Jones, 30 which was decided on common-law grounds in a diversity action without explicit reliance on the First Amendment. A constitutionalization of the rule was made in Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 31 in which the Court held unconstitutional a state statute that recognized the autonomy and authority of those North American branches of the Russian Orthodox Church which had declared their independence from the general church. Recognizing that Watson v. Jones had been decided on nonconstitutional grounds, the Court thought nonetheless that the opinion ”radiates . . . a spirit of freedom for religious organizations, and independence from secular control or manipulation–in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.” 32 The power of civil courts to resolve church property disputes was severely circumscribed, the Court held, because to permit resolution of doctrinal disputes in court was to jeopardize First Amendment values. What a court must do, it was held, is to look at the church rules: if the church is a hierarchical one which reposes determination of ecclesiastical issues in a certain body, the resolution by that body is determinative, while if the church is a congregational one prescribing action by a majority vote, that determination will prevail. 33 On the other hand, a court confronted with a church property dispute could apply ”neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes,” when to do so would not require resolution of doctrinal issues. 34 In a later case the Court elaborated on the limits of proper inquiry, holding that an argument over a matter of internal church government, the power to reorganize the dioceses of a hierarchical church in this country, was ”at the core of ecclesiastical affairs” and a court could not interpret the church constitution to make an inde pendent determination of the power but must defer to the interpretation of the body authorized to decide. 35

In Jones v. Wolf, 36 however, a divided Court, while formally adhering to these principles, appeared to depart in substance from their application. A schism had developed in a local church which was a member of a hierarchical church, and the majority voted to withdraw from the general church. The proper authority of the general church determined that the minority constituted the ”true congregation” of the local church and awarded them authority over it. The Court approved the approach of the state court in applying neutral principles by examining the deeds to the church property, state statutes, and provisions of the general church’s constitution concerning ownership and control of church property in order to determine that no language of trust in favor of the general church was contained in any of them and that the property thus belonged to the local congregation. 37 Further, the Court held, the First Amendment did not prevent the state court from applying a presumption of majority rule to award control to the majority of the local congregation, provided that it permitted defeasance of the presumption upon a showing that the identity of the local church is to be determined by some other means as expressed perhaps in the general church charter. 38 The dissent argued that to permit a court narrowly to view only the church documents relating to property ownership permitted the ignoring of the fact that the dispute was over ecclesiastical matters and that the general church had decided which faction of the congregation was the local church. 39

Thus, it is unclear where the Court is on this issue. Jones v. Wolf restated the rule that it is improper to review an ecclesiastical dispute and that deference is required in those cases, but by approving a neutral principles inquiry which in effect can filter out the doctrinal issues underlying a church dispute, the Court seems to have approved at least an indirect limitation of the authority of hierarchical churches. 40


[Footnote 1] 1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

[Footnote 2] The committee appointed to consider Madison’s proposals, and on which Madison served, with Vining as chairman, had rewritten the religion section to read: ”No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” After some debate during which Madison suggested that the word ”national” might be inserted before the word ”religion” as ”point[ing] the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent,” the House adopted a substitute reading: ”Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 729-31 (August 15, 1789). On August 20, on motion of Fisher Ames, the language of the clause as quoted in the text was adopted. Id. at 766. According to Madison’s biographer, ”[t]here can be little doubt that this was written by Madison.” I. Brant, James Madison–Father of the Constitution 1787-1800 at 271 (1950).

[Footnote 3] This text, taken from the Senate Journal of September 9, 1789, appears in 2 B. Schwartz (ed.), The Bill of Rights: A Documentary History 1153 (1971). It was at this point that the religion clauses were joined with the freedom of expression clauses.

[Footnote 4] 1 Annals of Congress 913 (September 24, 1789). The Senate concurred the same day. See I. Brant, James Madison–Father of the Constitution 1787-1800, 271-72 (1950).

[Footnote 5] During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that ”he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.” 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789). That his conception of ”establishment” was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, ”comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.”’ 8 The Writings of James Madison (G. Hunt. ed.) 132-33 (1904). Madison’s views were no doubt influenced by the fight in the Virginia legislature in 1784-1785 in which he successfully led the opposition to a tax to support teachers of religion in Virginia and in the course of which he drafted his ”Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” setting forth his thoughts. Id. at 183-91; I. Brant, James Madison–The Nationalist 1780-1787, 343-55 (1948). Acting on the momentum of this effort, Madison secured passage of Jefferson’s ”Bill for Religious Liberty”. Id. at 354; D. Malone, Jefferson the Virginian 274-280 (1948). The theme of the writings of both was that it was wrong to offer public support of any religion in particular or of religion in general.

[Footnote 6] 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1865 (1833).

[Footnote 7] Id. at 1873.

[Footnote 8] Id. at 1868.

[Footnote 9] For a late expounding of this view, see T. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States 224-25 (3d ed. 1898).

[Footnote 10] 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947). Establishment Clause jurisprudence since, whatever its twists and turns, maintains this view.

[Footnote 11] Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 91 (1985) (then-Justice Rehnquist dissenting). More recently, dissenters, including now-Chief Justice Rehnquist, have appeared reconciled to a ”constitutional tradition” in which governmental endorsement of religion is out of bounds, even if it is not correct as a matter of history. See Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2678, 2683-84 (1992) (Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices White and Thomas, dissenting).

[Footnote 12] Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2667 (1992) (Justice Souter, joined by Justices Stevens and O’Connor, concurring).

[Footnote 13] Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 668 (1970).

[Footnote 14] Id.

[Footnote 15] 16 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 281 (A. Libscomb ed., 1904).

[Footnote 16] 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879).

[Footnote 17] Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947); Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211 , 212 (1948); cf. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 317 (1952) (Justice Black dissenting). In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971), Chief Justice Burger remarked that ”the line of separation, far from being a ‘wall,’ is a blurred, indistinct and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.” Similar observations were repeated by the Chief Justice in his opinion for the Court in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984) (the metaphor is not ”wholly accurate”; the Constitution does not ”require complete separation of church and state [but] affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any”).

[Footnote 18] Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 (1952); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 305 (1963) (Justice Goldberg concurring); Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 694 -97 (1970) (Justice Harlan concurring). In the opinion of the Court in the latter case, Chief Justice Burger wrote: ”The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.” Id. at 669.

[Footnote 19] Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 249 (1968) (Justice Harlan concurring).

[Footnote 20] Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222 (1963).

[Footnote 21] Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 674 -75 (1970).

[Footnote 22] 403 U.S. 602, 612 -13 (1971).

[Footnote 23] E.g., Committee for Public Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 653 (1980), and id. at 665 (dissenting opinion); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 40 (1980), and id. at 43 (dissenting opinion).

[Footnote 24] The tests provide ”helpful signposts,” Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741 (1973), and are at best ”guidelines” rather than a ”constitutional caliper;” they must be used to consider ”the cumulative criteria developed over many years and applying to a wide range of governmental action.” Inevitably, ”no ‘bright line’ guidance is afforded.” Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677 -78 (1971). See also Committee for Public Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 761 & n.5, 773 n.31 (1973); Committee for Public Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 662 (1980), and id. at 663 (Justice Blackmun dissenting).

[Footnote 25] See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 636 -40 (1987) (Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissenting) (advocating abandonment of the ”purpose” test); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 108 -12 (1985) (Justice Rehnquist dissenting); Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402, 426 -30 (1985) (Justice O’Connor, dissenting) (addressing difficulties in applying the entanglement prong); Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 768 -69 (Justice White concurring in judgment) (objecting to entanglement test). Justice Kennedy has also acknowledged criticisms of the Lemon tests, while at the samed time finding no need to reexamine them. See, e.g., Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 655 -56 (1989). At least with respect to public aid to religious schools, Justice Stevens would abandon the tests and simply adopt a ”no-aid” position. Committee for Public Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 671 (1980).

[Footnote 26] See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayers on the basis of historical practice); Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2655 (1992) (rejecting a request to reconsider Lemon because the practice of invocations at public high school graduations was invalid under established school prayer precedents); Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 (1993) (upholding provision of sign-language interpreter to deaf student attending parochial school); Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481 (1994) (invalidating law creating special school district for village composed exclusively of members of one religious sect). The Court has also held that the tripartite test is not applicable when law grants a denominational preference, distinguishing between religions; rather, the distinction is to be subjected to the strict scrutiny of a suspect classification. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 -46 (1982).

[Footnote 27] Justice Blackmun, concurring in Lee, contended that Marsh was the only one of 31 Establishment cases between 1971 and 1992 not to be decided on the basis on the Lemon tests. 112 S. Ct. at 2663, n.4.

[Footnote 28] In 1990 Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Scalia, proposed that ”neutral” accommodations of religion should be permissible so long as they do not establish a state religion, and so long as there is no ”coercion” to participate in religious exercises. Westside Community Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 260 -61. The two Justices parted company, however, over the permissiblity of invocations at public high school graduation ceremonies, Justice Scalia in dissent strongly criticizing Justice Kennedy’s approach in the opinion of the Court for its reliance on psychological coercion. Justice Scalia would not ”expand[ ] the concept of coercion beyond acts backed by threat of penalty.” Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2684 (1992). Chief Justice Rehnquist has advocated limiting application to a prohibition on establishing a national (or state) church or favoring one religious group over another. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 98 , 106 (1985) (dissenting).

[Footnote 29] Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222 -23 (1963). See also Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 248 -49 (1968); and Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 689 (1971); Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649, 2673 (Justice Souter concurring) (”a literal application of the coercion test would render the Establishment Clause a virtual nullity”).

[Footnote 1 (1996 Supplement)] Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet,114 S. Ct. 2481, 2498-99 (1994).

[Footnote 2 (1996 Supplement)] Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (concurring); Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 625 (1989) (concurring); Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2500 (1994) (concurring).

[Footnote 30] 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1872).

[Footnote 31] 344 U.S. 94 (1952). Kedroff was grounded on the Free Exercise Clause. Id. at 116. But the subsequent cases used a collective ”First Amendment” designation.

[Footnote 32] Id. at 116. On remand, the state court adopted the same ruling on the merits but relied on a common-law rule rather than the statute. This too was struck down. Kreshik v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 363 U.S. 190 (1960).

[Footnote 33] Presbyterian Church v. Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 447 , 450-51 (1969); Maryland and Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 396 U.S. 367 (1970). For a similar rule of neutrality in another context, see United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944) (denying defendant charged with mail fraud through dissemination of purported religious literature the right to present to the jury evidence of the truthfulness of the religious views he urged).

[Footnote 34] Presbyterian Church v. Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449 (1969); Maryland and Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God v. Church of God of Sharpsburg, 396 U.S. 367, 368 (1970). See also id. at 368-70 (Justice Brennan concurring).

[Footnote 35] The Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Dionisije Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 697, 720 -25 (1976). In Gonzalez v. Archbishop, 280 U.S. 1 (1929), the Court had permitted limited inquiry into the legality of the actions taken under church rules. The Serbian Eastern Court disapproved of this inquiry with respect to concepts of ”arbitrariness,” although it reserved decision on the ”fraud” and ”collusion” exceptions. 426 U.S. at 708 -20.

[Footnote 36] 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In the majority were Justices Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, Rehnquist, and Stevens. Dissenting were Justices Powell, Stewart, White, and Chief Justice Burger.

[Footnote 37] Id. at 602-06.

[Footnote 38] Id. at 606-10. Because it was unclear whether the state court had applied such a rule and applied it properly, the Court remanded.

[Footnote 39] Id. at 610.

[Footnote 40] The Court indicated that the general church could always expressly provide in its charter or in deeds to property the proper disposition of disputed property. But here the general church had decided which faction was the ”true congregation,” and this would appear to constitute as definitive a ruling as the Court’s suggested alternatives. Id. at 606.

Follow this link:
Annotation 1 – First Amendment – FindLaw

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Annotation 1 – First Amendment – FindLaw

What is Freedom – Holistic Politics

Posted: September 10, 2016 at 5:25 am

What is Freedom?

Freedom. We sing about it in our patriotic songs. We teach it to our children in school. Hollywood and Madison Avenue glorify it. Here in the United States, freedom is the civic religion.

But if freedom is our civic religion, why is the libertarian movement in the U.S. so small? Why is government so big and our jails so full? Is all our talk of freedom mere lip service? Are we a nation of sheeple duped by the powers that be?

To some degree, yes. But these are not the major reasons why the libertarian movement is so small. Pure libertarians lack credibility with the masses because they dont necessarily offer liberty. Abolish the government willy nilly and reduced liberty is the likely result. The power vacuum left by vanished government is likely to be filled by feudal warlords, a military junta and/or invading armies. Anarchy with liberty may be possible but it is not automatic. The People are prudent to refuse the risk.

What about moderate libertarians? What about those who would like to shrink the federal government to its Constitutional bounds? Why havent freedom lovers joined their banners en masse? Well, some did, for Ron Pauls recent run for President, but not nearly enough to win the Republican nomination, much less elect a President. This is supposed to be the Land of the Free. What gives?

It took me years to figure it out, but I believe I have the answer. It is an answer most active libertarians will not like to hear. Pragmatic libertarians do indeed offer liberty, but liberty is not the same thing as freedom!

By liberty I mean what my libertarians friends mean by liberty: liberty is the absence of coercion. It is a state of being where transactions are voluntary, where all constraints are the result of honest contracts. I like liberty. I wish we had more of it, here and in other parts of the world. I even have a series on libertarian strategy in the the hope that libertarians become more successful in increasing liberty. But liberty is not the same thing as freedom. Freedom is something bigger.

So what is freedom?

You can pull out a dictionary for a stilted definition. I will define it simply: freedom is being able to do what you want to do. Free speech and free beer both speak of freedom. Free speech is a freedom that comes directly from liberty. Free beer, however, requires more than mere permission to drink fermented barley. It requires that someone has gone through the trouble to brew the beer and is willing to give it out. If no one is so inclined brew beer and give it away, the ideal of Freedom as in Free Beer contains a conflict. Free beer for you means beer servitude for someone else.

This is why freedom-loving Vulcans stick to promoting liberty. They see the potential conflict inherent in free beer freedoms as a contradiction. Liberty can be granted to all who respect the liberty of others or at least thats the ideal. (In practice we run up against a few conflicts or even contradictions.) So many libertarians would define freedom down to mere liberty, and thus wall off from their minds the messy business of balancing trade-offs.

I say mere liberty because for many people more liberty need not translate into more freedom. A marginal increase in liberty can result is subtantially less freedom, especially in the short run. This, I submit, is why libertarianism has limited popularity here in the Land of the Free. For millions of people liberal and conservative ideas offer more increments freedom than many libertarian ideas.

Consider a single mom who has to put in 50 hour weeks at Dennys to support her children. A cuddly fascist offering government childcare and socialized medicine along with his program of censorship of naughty TV and conquering Bolivia for no good reason offers more freedom to this mother than a smaller government libertarian. This is but one illustration. I give others elsewhere.

Libertarianism has limited popularity for good reason.

This is not a libertarian site. It is a pro-freedom site. Here, we attempt to balance several freedoms, including:

Back when I was a libertarian and active in the Libertarian Party, I spent thousands of dollars and hours promoting the party and the cause. Converts and recruits were few and far between. Today, I am mostly out of the game, playing Candy Land with my young daughter instead of placing signs, dropping leaflets, working booths and attending meetings. Yet I have well over a hundred people lining up to join my nonexistent new political party proposed elsewhere on this site.

Freedom is popular here in the Land of the Free.

What is not popular is knowledge of how to be more free. Many liberals call for mass bureaucracy because they know no other way to achieve freedom from the boss. If that is you, or you wish to persuade such liberals otherwise, see the red titles on the sidebar. Likewise, many environmentalists believe we have to abride economic freedom and/or our prosperous way of life in order to preserve nature. For you I have the green article series. For those of you who desire a safe and moral place to raise your children, there are the blue articles.

If you are ready to dive in and look at specific proposals, feel free to jump to the relevant article series. On the other hand, if you are a top down thinker, or a libertarian/small government conservative who has a hard time grokking the distinction between liberty and freedom, please continue with this series.

Originally posted here:

What is Freedom – Holistic Politics

Posted in Freedom | Comments Off on What is Freedom – Holistic Politics

NC NSA Softball – Tournament

Posted: September 3, 2016 at 11:34 pm

Sept 10 One Day Shootout September 11-2016 Greensboro/Carolyn Allen 3 $175.00 Howard Edwards Sept 10-11 Fall Super Bash September 10-11 2016 Salisbury Community Park 4 $225.00 Howard Edwards Sept 10-11 Fall 6 Game Eden High School September 10-11 2016 Eden Freedom Park 6 $250.00 Howard Edwards Sept 10-11 Fall 10U Super Girl September 10-11 2016 Statesville/Saratoma 5 $225.00 Howard Edwards Sept 17-18 College Connection 16U/18U September 17-18 2016 Salisbury Community Park 4 $350.00 Howard Edwards Sept 17-18 Fall Championship 10,12,14 September 17-18 2016 Huntersville/Bradford 4 $225.00 Chuck Laney Sept 17-18 NSA Six Game Super Bash September 17-18 2016 Tyger River Spartanburg 6 $350.00 Howard Edwards Sept 24-25 Fall Cheerwine 10U-12U-14U September 24-25 2016 Salisbury/Mooresville 5 $250.00 Howard Edwards Sept 24-25 Dudley Sports Elite 6GG 14U-HS September 24-25 2016 Rock Hill 6 $325.00 Chuck Laney Oct 1-2 NC/VA Fall Championship October 1-2 2016 Greensboro/Carolyn Allen 5 $300.00 Howard Edwards Oct 1-2 Winthrop Gold Cup 1 October 1-2 2016 Winthrop College Rock Hill 4 $300.00 Jim Allen October 8-9 Winthrop Gold Cup 2 October 1-2 2016 Winthrop College Rock Hill 4 $300.00 Jim Allen Oct 1-2 Think Pink October 1-2 2016 Concord/Frank Lisk 4 $300.00 Colt Butler Oct 8-9 10U Special Weekend October 8-9 2016 Thomasville/East Davidsion complex 4 $250.00 Howard Edwards Oct 8-9 Fall Class B Championship 12U-14U October 8-9 2016 Salisbury Community Park 5 $250.00 Howard Edwards Oct 8-9 NSA Gold Cup 6GG 12U-14U October 8-9 2016 Rock Hill Cherry Park 6 $325.00 Chuck Laney Oct 8-9 Fall Beach Blast Myrtle Beach October 8-9 2016 Myrtle Beach Georgetown 4 $325.00 Howard Edwards Oct 15-16 The Thriller October 15-16 2016 Huntersville-Bradford 4 $250.00 Colt Butler Oct 15 Out of the Park 14U October 15-2016 Reidsville 4 $195.00 Doyle OBryant Oct 15-16 Fall Talent Search October 15-16 2016 Burlington/Springwood 4 $375.00 Howard Edwards

Read the original:
NC NSA Softball – Tournament

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NC NSA Softball – Tournament

DoD Releases 2015 Fiscal Year Freedom of Navigation Report

Posted: August 30, 2016 at 11:10 pm


Press Operations

Today, the Department of Defense (DoD) released its 2015 fiscal year Freedom of Navigation (FON) Report, which provides a summary of excessive maritime claims that were challenged by U.S. forces during the period of Oct. 1, 2014, through Sept. 30, 2015. The report summarizes challenges to excessive maritime claims asserted by 13 claimants throughout the world.

The DoD FON program is comprehensive in scope, encompassing all of the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace available to all nations under international law. The program is implemented actively against excessive maritime claims by claimants in every region of the world in order to support DoDs global interest in mobility and access.

Each year, DoD compiles an unclassified FON Report providing summaries of the FON operations and other FON related activities conducted by U.S. forces. The summarized reports transparently demonstrate the U.S. non-acquiescence to excessive maritime claims, while still protecting the operational security of U.S. military forces.

The 2015 DoD FON Report is available at http://policy.defense.gov/OUSDPOffices/FON.aspx.

The rest is here:

DoD Releases 2015 Fiscal Year Freedom of Navigation Report

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on DoD Releases 2015 Fiscal Year Freedom of Navigation Report

Transhumanist Party | Facebook

Posted: August 27, 2016 at 7:06 pm

Friends, Have you heard off the 22-day push-up challenge? My good friend Mike La Caze nominated me to do it. Basically, one does 22 push-ups a day for 22 days t…o raise awareness for combat veterans (and we record our pushup experiences and share it). There are approximately 22 vets a day that are committing suicide, and this is a small way to raise awareness for that issue. As a journalist who has been to war zones and seen tragedy, I’m especially interested in making sure our soldiers are happy when they return home. The hope here is that awareness of this tragic issue brings more funding, resources, and support to the vets that need it when they face depression.

Everyday, I’m supposed to nominate somone else to do this too. Today I nominate Transhumanist Party officer and friend Chris T. Armstrong.

The rules are simple: * Once you are nominated your 22 days start the following day. * Every day, you record yourself doing 22 push-ups. Try your best to reach 22. If that means doing assisted (from your knees) push-ups or that you have to stop and take a break that’s fine but try to get them all done in one video. * Every day you must nominate a different person. Try to choose people you think will want to do this and/or have the ability to do it. * And finally, have fun with this. This is a simple and fun way to get the word out about a matter that more people need to be aware about. **These brave men and women put their lives on the line to protect our freedom and it’s sad that so many veterans feel that suicide is the only way out. For more information: http://stopsoldiersuicide.org/about/ #transhumanism #ScienceCandidate #Election2016 #POTUS #22PushupChallenge

Original post:
Transhumanist Party | Facebook

Posted in Transhumanist | Comments Off on Transhumanist Party | Facebook

Map – Fellowship for Intentional Community

Posted: August 21, 2016 at 11:16 am

(Enota) Mountain Retreat (TANWP) The Action Not Words Project’s Urban Farm and Community Agricultural Education Center 1st Amazon Ecovillage | Guayana Peace Trail Project 2BD Termined 2nd Chance – New Beginnings 3DIVINE3 3rd coast sustainable energy + living. Galveston 40th Avenue Cohousing 50/50 Land Share, Coombs Vancouver Island BC 5D Collective 611 Ecovillage 7 Lakes Ranch 7th Millennium Community 8th Life EcoVillage Project A 2nd Attempt: Cheap land and interesting people A Better Way Health Community A Dieing Breed A Growing Playce for Practice in Collaborative Community A heart’s intention for an eco-village A Hopeful Gathering A Nazarene Community A New Home Project A Place in the woods A Place in Utah A Project For Humanity A Property in Beautiful BC A Ringing Cedars Eco Village in The Italian Alps A Star Community – FREE 5 ACRE LOTS for building homes A-Beautiful-Life, Missouri, Permanent A-Woodland-Institute for Strategic Ecology AB Soil Abbey of the Genesee ABC-BHF Science Station Abeo Abode of the Message Abracadabra Abundance Farm Abundant Dawn Community Abundant Freek Acequia Jardin Acme Artists Community Acorn Community Farm Acts 2:42 House Acts24247 Ad Astra Student Cooperative Adawehi Adelphi Adesa Community AdultSwim Africa Needs Free Justice Afterworld Agape Community Agape Community of Hawaii Ahimsa Ahimsa Eco Cooperative Ahupuaa Village Ahupuaa Village Ahupuaa Village Ahupuaa Village Akaka Pitstop Akakor Pagan Permaculture Farming Community Akron Cohousing Community; formerly Benedictions Akwa akwaaba Albuquerque Cohousing Group Alchemy Farm Alchemy Village Aldea 506 Ecovillage ALDEAFELIZ Aldeas de Paz Aldeia Coletivo de Familias Alderleaf Wilderness College and Farm Alegria (Starting) Aleskam Alexandra Meadows Alkebulan Community Allananda Center Allegheny Crest Intentional Village Alliance of Intentional Communities Australia (AICA) Alon International Alpha Farm Altair EcoVillage Alto Sax Tantra Community Amabel Amberwood Falls Ambrosia Cooperative House American Buddhist Shim Gum Do Association American Oasis American Permaculture and Transition Community Haven Ames Cohousing Amrit Yoga Institute An Ultra-Loving, Ultra-Empathic, Ultra-Caring Family (AKA Empathy) Anahata Bio-Community Anahata Village Ananda Community of Portland Ananda Community, Lynnwood, WA Ananda Dhiira Yoga and Meditation Retreat Center Ananda Kanan Ozark Retreat Center Ananda Laurelwood Ananda Sacramento Ananda Village Anarres Two Cooperative Community Anatopia Anas Farm Ancestral Roots Community Andelssamfundet i Hjortshj Andi Schulgasser – individual wanting to share house of like-minded people Angsviksgarden (ngsviksgrden) Anima Journey ANIMAL VILLAGE – green, no-kill, cage-free Animation – The [emailprotected] Resort AnotherLand Antelopia Antioch Village Pioneers Aorista Apasana Apex Belltown Co-op Aponi Gardens Apusenii Verzi Ecovillage Aquarius Nature Retreat Arboretum Cohousing ARC Retreat Community – An Ecumenical Center Arc-enCourage Arca Verde, Ecovila e Instituto Arcadia Cohousing Arcadiahouse ARCH (RVA) Ardhanariswaras Transgenders Aria Cohousing Community Ark Of Alaska 543 Aroha Village Permaculture Community Arrupe House Art Art and Soul Collective Art Without Fear Artist Way Artists Cohousing, Louisville, Colorado Asant Gardens asbvalley Ascending Spirit Ascension Arts Retreat TI intentional community Asheville Mountain Meadows Ashland Cohousing Community Ashram West Associao Ecolgica Portal do Sol Astral Valley Astro Eco Love At Home Housing Atamai Village Atlanta Sustainable Community Atlantis Ecological Community Atlantis Rising, Inc. Atlas City Project Atwater Resources Cooperative (ARC) Audre Lorde Cooperative House Auro-Ecovillage Shawnigan Lake – British Columbia Aurora Pocket Neighborhood Autonomous Freedom Initiative (AFI Commune) Autonomy Autumn Sun Available Space Avalon Avalon Cooperative House Avalon of Conceivia Awaawaroa Bay Eco-Village Awakened Life Project Awakening Soul Awesomanity Town Aztlan, earthwalk b-green Baba Yaga Back to Nature Ecovillage Backyard Neighborhoods Badulina Baltimore Free Farm Barwell Home Basic Elements Commune Bay Area Ecovillage Founders Group Bay State Commons Bay View Ecovillage Beacon Hill Friends House Beacon Hill-ton Beal Cooperative Bean Creek Bean Tree Farm/Dancing Rocks Beannachar Camphill Community BEANNACHAR CAMPHILL COMMUNITY-Aberdeen Bear Creek Farms Beautiful Universe E Center Beaver Creek Homestead Beaver Lodge Bedford Cohousing Bee Oasis Beech Hill Community Belfast Cohousing & Ecovillage Bellbunya Community Association Belle H. Bennett Fellowship Bellingham Cohousing Bellvale Bellyacres – Artistic Ecovillage Belterra Cohousing Ben Badawi Bend Clustered Eco-Housing Beneficio Beranghi Co-op.Ltd. Berea College Ecovillage Berkeley Cohousing Berkeley Student Cooperative Berkeley Town House Bet Shalom Bethany House of Hospitality Bethlehem Farm Better Farm Better In Belize Eco Village Betterfields Community Development Beverley House BFG Tunnan Bhakti House Bhrugu Aranya Ecovillage – Poland Biblical Living Community Binary Model Bio Aldeia Arawikay Biospharms Bird of Paradise Bird River Oasis Birdhouse Birds and Bees Permaculture Village Birdsfoot Farm Bitternut Homestead Urban Collective Black Bulga Black Elk House Black Sheep Animal Sanctuary Blackberry Blessings’ Sanctuary Blissful Village Blissfull Village Blissfull Village Blissfull Village Blissfull Village Bloomington Christian Radical Catholic Worker Community Bloomington Cohousing Bloomington Cooperative Living Inc. Blue Agave community Blue Moon Cooperative Blueberry Blueberry Hill BlueJay Lake Farm Bodhi Tree Yoga Resort Bofreningen Vildsvinet Bohn Farm Community Cohousing Boise EcoVillage Project Boomtown BORN FREE PROGRESSIVE COOPERATIVE Bosch Co-op Bosque Village: San Galileo Boston Community Cooperatives Boston CouchSurfing Co-Op Boulder Creek Community Bower House Brave New Mountain Braziers Park (School of Social and Integrative Research) Bread and Roses – Base community (Brot & Rosen) Bread and Roses Collective Breathing Rock Breitenbush Hot Springs Bright Morning Star Bristol Village Cohousing Broken Earth Darga & Healing Center Broomgrass – an organic farm community Brotherhood of Christ Community Bruderhof Bryn Gweled Homesteads BTR Ecovillage Buddha Dharma Sangha Buffalo Commons Cohousing Bug Hill Farm Bundschu Creek Cohousing Burdock House Burlington Cohousing East Village Burrow House Calvin College Project Neighborhood Calyx Institute for Integral Health cambia Cambridge Cohousing Cambridge Cooperative Club Cambridge Zen Center Cambridge Zen Center, a member of the Kwan Um School of Zen Camelot Cohousing Camerata Community 55 Camp Augusta Camp Potiswowtome Camphill Botswana Camphill Communities California Camphill Communities in Britain and Ireland, Association of Camphill Communities Ontario Camphill Soltane Camphill Special School Camphill Village Kimberton Hills Camphill Village Minnesota Camphill Village USA, Inc. CampOma Can MasDeu Canby House Canon Frome Court Community Canopy Cohousing Canterbury community Cantine’s Island Cohousing Capitol Hill Urban CoHousing CARE FAMILY Casa Colibri Catholic Worker A.C. Casa da Ribeira Casa de NIC Casa Hueso Casa Maria Catholic Worker Community Casa San Carlos Casa Verde Commons Casadore Cascadia Commons Cohousing Community class=’mapp-icon’ src=’http://www.ic.org/wp-content/plugins/mappress-google-maps-for-wordpress/pro/standard_icons/red-dot.png’ /> Casey Sister-Brotherhood Castle Mountain Dream Catalyst Ecovillage Catholic Ecovillage Catholic Worker Community Catholic Worker Community of Cleveland Catoctin Creek Village Cave Creek Farm Cedar Hollow Community Cedar Moon Cedar Rock Co op Cedar Rock Farm and Community Cedar Springs Farm CedarSanctum Celo Community Center for the Working Poor/ Burning Bush Community Center of Life Center of Unity Schweibenalp Central Coast Community Central Mass Villagers Central Ohio LERN Central PA Central PA Community Housing Central PA Eco Center – Shared Living / Work / Art Space for Earth Conscious People Centre de Ressource au Coeur de l’Etre (En Estrie, Qubec) Centre for Alternative Technology – CAT Cerro Gordo Community Chambalabamba Champlain Valley Cohousing Chaortica Chaparraso Charlotte Cohousing Community Charlotte North Carolina Grannies Chateau Ubuntu Chattanooga Collaborative Senior Housing Chemin du Soleil Cherryleaf Ecovillage Chester Creek House Women’s Collective Chico Ecovillage Chippenham Community Christ Covenant Christian Community Christian Transition Village Christiania Christie Walk Chrysalis Community Chuckelberry Galactic Farms and Commodities CHVA (Co-Operative Housing at the University of Virginia) Cielito Lindo Ranch Cinderland Eco-Village Cinderland EcoVillage Circle of Ancient Sisters Circle of Children Circle of One Cite Ecologique of New Hampshire Citizens of Planet Earth Academy City Haven City of God Villages City of the Sun Foundation, Inc Civitas Libera Clanabogan Camphill Community Clearwater Commons Co-Creation Co-Creators’ Dream Co-Housing Connection of East Hawaii (CCEHa) Co-Op Housing University of Maryland Co-Op Village Foundation Co-ordination Co-op Co-West Coaching House Coastal Cohousing Cobb Hill Cocoon Washington State CoFlats Stroud Cohabitat Qubec Coho Canyon CoHo Ecovillage Cohogroupboise Cohousing Co-operative Ltd CoHousing Group Kwarteel Cohousing Vinderhoute Cohousing.be Cold Pond Community Land Trust Collectif Creatif du Castellas Collective Agency Collective Kindness Communities College Houses Collegiate Living Cooperative Columbia Ecovillage Common Ground (VA) Common Ground Community Common Place Cooperative, Inc. Common Place Land Cooperative Common Treasury Farm Communaute du Pain de Vie Communaut de L’Arche Communaut des Batitudes Communaut du Chemin Neuf Commune Grounds Communikindred Communikindred Communikindred Communikindred Community Alive at Earthome Community First Housing Community for Mindful Living – CA & MA Locations Community Living Association (CLA) Community of Communities: New Orleans Community of Hospitality Community of Living Traditions at the Stony Point Conference Center Community of St. Isidore Community of the Franciscan Way Community of Urbana-Champaign Cooperative Housing (COUCH) Community Refuge Community Valley Comunidad Permacultural Na Lu’ Um Conceivia – Forming network Confluence Congregation of Yeshua Ha Mashiach-India Connected Wellness Center Conscious Life Ecumenical Union CLEU Contemplatives Living In Action Convertible Community Farm and Training Center Cooperative Roots cooperative space Copper Crest Corani Housing and Land Co-op Cornerstone Housing Co-operative Cornerstone Village Cohousing Cosmic Beauty School Costa Rica Ecovillage Country Gardens Couple Seeking Therapeutic Community UK Covenant House Faith Community covillage 2012 Covington Community Garden and Learning Center Coweeta Heritage Center Coyote Crossing Craik Eco Village Cranberry Commons Create An Eden Creating Intentional Community Creating Intentional Sustainable Community Asheville, N.C. Creative living project Creative Sanctuary and Freedom Farm Creekside Commons Cohousing Creekside Community Crossroads Medieval Village Crow Moon Crystal Creek Permaculture Cluster Crystal Waters Permaculture Village Cully Grove Culture Unplugged Currawinya Currently unnamed Currents Curtis Pike Intentional Community cw Het Hallehuis CW Lismortel Cypress VIllages D Acres of New Hampshire D&C 59:14-21 Dacha Project Dallas Cohousing Dalzell South Carolina Catholic Worker Damanhur, Federation of Communities Dancing Bones Dancing Creek Farm Dancing Hearts Community Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage Dancing Spirits Community House Dancing Waters Permaculture Co-op Dandelion Dandelion Village Daniel Brady Danu Healing Community, Farm and Nature School Dark Stone Bromelias Practice Center Davis Domes Daybreak Cohousing Debs House Dedetepe eco-farm Deepwoods Farm community Dehnaten Holistic Community Delaware Street Commons Delhi Village Denton Cohousing Denver Space Center Desert Light Circle Desert Moon Spiritual Center Desert Surprise House Desert Willow Detroit Street Family Co-op Dharma Digger Street dimensional living Discipleship Community House of Tallahassee Diverse Matrix Community Dome Village Katrina Dominican Crossroads Dos Pinos Dos Tortugas Ecuador Douceur et Harmonie: Domain Maman Terre Down Home Ranch Down-to-Earth Eco-Village Downeast Cohousing Community Doyle Street Dragon Belly Farm Dragon Sky Farms Vegan Community Dream School Dream River Ranch, LLC Dreamland Co-Living Dreamship Community Drexel House Dripping Springs Organic Ranch Drumlin Co-operative Dudley Co-op Dunmire Hollow Community Durham Central Park Cohousing Community Durika Foundation Dusun Medinah Duwamish Cohousing Duma E.A.R.T.H-(Extending Awareness, Reaching To Heal) Connecticut Eagles Nest Eagletree Herbs Earnshaw Ecohouse Earth Angeles garden Earth EcoVillage Earth Energies Eco Village Earth Friends Intentional Community Earth Mountain View Earth Mountain View Educationnal Research Center Earth Re-Leaf Earth Rising Sanctuary Earth Tribe Earth Tribe Delaware Earth Tribe Trust Learning Center EarthArt Village Earthaven Ecovillage EarthChild Collective Earthdance Earthlands EARTHSHIP UK INTENTIONAL LIVING EarthSky tribe Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood Earthwalk Sustainable Living Centre Earthwise Valley Earthworks Eco Village Earthworm Collective Earthworm Housing Co-operative EARTHYACHT East Bay Cohousing East Blair Housing Co-op East Brook Community Farm East River Community East Wind East-of-Eden Eastern Light Project Eastern Village Cohousing Eastside Cohousing Echo Hills Cottages Eco Acres Eco Chateau Eco communitylk Eco Island Eco Velatropa ECO VILLAGE INTENTIONAL COMMUNITY Eco Yoga Farm Eco Yoga Park eco-Farm Elata Eco-Tribe Eco-village Moldova ecoaldea espiral de luz ecoaldea espiral de luz -1- Ecoaldea Gratitud Ecoaldea Huehuecoyotl Ecocentro de Transicin Semilla Paz Ecoculture Village ecofarmfl EcoJoya EcoLetu EcoReality Co-op EcoTerra Community Ecotopia/Ithaca Ecovila Clareando Ecovila da Montanha Ecovila perto de Serra Grande Ecovilla Gaia Ecovillage AR EcoVillage at Ithaca, TREE, the third neighborhood Ecovillage Charlottesville EcoVillage Dungeness Valley EcoVillage Ithaca Ecovillage Kostunici Ecovillage Network UK Ecovillage New Jersey EcoVillage of Loudoun County ECOVILLAGE VIVER SIMPLES Ed’s house Eden Community Eden Sanctuary EdenWild Edgehill 12 Edges Edinstvo ecovillage Egge 7 Eight Limbs Housing Cooperative Eighteenth Ave Peace House Ekobius Ecovillage (Ecology Crossroads) Ekobyn Blarna El Bloque El Santuario Altavista Elamala Elbereth Elder Commons Elderberry Village Elders On The Watchtower ElderSpirit Community at Trailview Elemental Eden Elemental Kindom Eliopoli Ella Baker Graduate House Ella Jo Baker Intentional Community Cooperative, Inc. Elm Creek Trails Elm Street Co-op Eloin Elsworth-Bowie Cooperative Emerald City Emerald Earth Sanctuary Emerald Grove Intentional Community Emergency Communities Emerson Commons Cohousing Emerson Tenants Cooperative Emma Goldman Finishing School Emmaus Haarzuilens Emmaus House ENARGEIA Enchanted Garden Intentional Community Endless Enigma Farm Energy Of Life Institute Enlinca Eno Commons Enright Ridge Urban Eco-village Esperanza de Sol de Finca Amanecer Essense of Eden – The Eden Project Etherion Ringing Cedars Intentional Community Eugene Cohousing Downtown Eureka Institute Evening Rain Farm Event Farm EVO: The Emerald Village in Vista, CA EX TRANSSEXUAL seeks Jesus followers for Martinsburg WV Ex-Hacienda La Petaca Explore, Thrive, Create Expressive Arts Alliance Faerie Camp Destiny Fairview House Faith House Ottawa Falconblanco Falls Church Cohousing Familia Feliz (ESP1) Familia Feliz (GER1) Family Family Farm Hostel Family Focused Sustainable Homestead Community Family Of Light Center Farmer Paul’s Ranch Farming in Willamette Valley region Farmpound farmvilleinreallife Faslane Peace Camp Father Divine’s Peace Mission Movement Fedorovtsy Feralculture Ferency House Ferme Paysanne RDF Fern Hollow Ecovillage Fernwood Urban Village Cohousing Festina Lente FIASCO Fiji Organic Village Finca Fruicin: Permaculture Land Cooperative Finca Las Brisas Costa Rica Finca Morpho Finca Nuevo Mundo Verde Finca Quijote de Esperanza Finca Sagrada Finca Sukkot Findhorn Foundation and Community Finney Farm Fiopa Community/Fiopa Consensus Collective Fiori Hill FIREWEED UNIVERSE CITY Five Sixty House Flagstaff Creative Cohousing Flatlanders Drydock Flatlanders Inn Fletcher Collective Flexico Florida Coast Integral Community Flower City Cohousing Community Flower Mound Senior Cohousing Floyd EcoVillage Folk Art Guild / East Hill Farm Followers of the Way Footbridge For the Creation of Intentional Communities Foreningen EKBO Forgebank Forgotten Formally Ant Hill Collective, Now wild seed collective Forming, need founders Fort Awesome fortunity FOSL – The Foundation of Sustainable Living found in montana FOUNDATION Foundational Living Colony of New Eden Fowler Mobile Home Park Fox Valley Sustainable Co-housing Franklinton Homestead Free Greens Farm Free Spirits Community Freedom Acres Freedom Farm Freedom South Texas Freedom-Universe Freedom72938 Freelandia! A Home of Sacred Spaces and Abundant Living Freethinkers Ecovillage Fresh Start Fresno Cohousing (a.k.a. La Querencia) Friendly Glen Cohousing FRIENDS SOUTHWEST CENTER Friends’ Cooperative House Frog Song Front Range Eco Town Frugal Living NYC Full Creeks Collective Fundacion Amalai Flleshave Gabriel’s Garden Gagetown Sustainability Complex Gaia Grove Ecovillage Gaia Shifts Gaia Vista Gaia’s Garden Gaian Progeny Villages GaiaYoga Gardens (of Earthly Delights) Gainesville Cohousing Gambhira Eco Yoga Village Ganas Garland Ave Cohousing Gathering Inn Community Gay Hawaii Lalala Gay Men’s Rural Community Gay Wisconsin Gecko Villa Gemeenschappelijk Wonen Nieuwegein Gemeinschaft Sulzbrunn Gemeinschaft Tortuga Genesee Gardens Cohousing Genisis Villiage Gentle World Inc. Germantown Commons Gerrie’s Glorious Greens Organic farm/The Worm factory Gesundheit! Institute GH Community Girlhouse Glacier Village Gladheart Farm Glen Ard Glenora Farm Global Community Communications Alliance Global Village of Bagni di Lucca Global-Natives at Mt. SoNNoS (Spirit of Nature) GlowHouse God’s last church Godsland Goin’ Om Gold Light Ranch Golden Eagle Friends Golden Girls on The Hill Golden Heart Village Golden Nectar Farm Goldenrod Land Co-op Golem Housing Co-operative Gondwana Sanctuary Good Roots Intentional Community Goodenough Community Goolawah Rural Land Sharing Co-op Goose Pond Community Gorge Cohousing Gorham Cohousing Govardhan Ecovillage Govinda’s Sanctuary Grace Heart Fellowship Grace Life Community Grace Sustainable Community Grateful 4 Grace Great Oak Cohousing Greater World Community Green Acres Green Acres Permaculture Village Green Bridge Farm Green Earth City – Pilot Project Green Grove Cohousing Community Green House Green House Cooperative Green Menagerie Green Quill Farm Green Street Urban Farm Health and Spiritual Homestead Green Valley Village Greenbriar greenhaus Greening Life Community GreenLife EcoRetreat Greenmount eco-co-housing GreenSong Sanctuary Greensoul Greenwave Gregory House Greyrock Commons Gricklegrass GRO-Rainbow-Community Grow Community Growing Home Gulf Islands Eco-Community Forming Gut Stolzenhagen Guwahi Eco Village GYMNOS – A neo-primitive tribe forming Gypsy Heart H.E.R. Co-operative Tribal Living Hacienda Guaraguao Hairakhandi Love Center Hakugyokoru Halcyon Commons Cooperative Urban Neighborhood Haley House HamakuaHarvest hammer house artist’s collective Handy Booboo Hanoar Haoved Vehalomed – Tnuat Habogrim (Adult movement) Happy Acres Happy Camp Republic Happy House Harambee Cooperative Harbin Hot Springs Harbourside Cohousing Harmonious Earth Community Foundation harmony & health Harmony Commune Harmony Farm Harmony Green Village Harmony Lakes Cohousing Harmony Living Harmony Village Harper Valley Farm Harrisonburg Cohousing Harrow Ashram Hart’s Mill Ecovillage Hartford IC Hayes Co-Housing Hazelwood Farm Community Headlands Headwaters Garden & Learning Center HEAL Heal The Soil Healing Castle Healing Earth New Amish Healing Grace Sanctuary Healing Hearts Sufi Dargah Healing Rain Health in Hawaii / Kolapa House of Charity Heart and Spoon Community House Heart House Medicine Heart Land Heart-Culture Farm Community HeARTbeat Collective Heartbeet Lifesharing Hearth Hearthstone Heartland Heartland Ecovillage Heartsong HeartTribe Village & Chrysalis Heartwood Cohousing Heartwood Community Incorporated Te Ngakau O Te Rakau Heartwood Institute Heartwood Refuge Heathcote Community. HeavenOnEarth Hebrews West Hedonisia Hawaii Sustainable Community Heinzist Tribe Hemp Nation Hen House Sangha Henderson Cooperative House Hermitage Foundation Hertha Hesed Community Cooperative Het Carre Hickory Grove Hickory Nut Forest Hickory Ridge Hidden Creek Cohousing Hidden Grove Hidden Meadow High Cove High Desert Coho High-Desert Permaculture Research Institute Higher Ground Cohousing Highland Goddess Temple and Commune Highline Crossing Cohousing Community HighTop Village Hikki Hermitage Hillegass House Hilo Cohousing Himalayan Institute Hip Mama’s In-town Village Hippie Arbor Hippie for Life HM157 HMS Possibility Hobbitstee (De) Hockerton Housing Project Hoffman Collective Hollow’s End Neighborhood Cooperative Holy Angels Monastery Home Alive Home for art Homeland Homeport Collective, The Homestead Sanctuary homestead point permiculture Homewood Cohousing Honey Acres Farm Honeyeaters Honolulu Housing Hui Honua Oia’i’o Kauai Hopewell Community House of Yacob Houston Access to Urban Sustainability HUB Hamt-Drbrn Humanity Healing Humble House Hummingbird Community Hundredfold Farm Cohousing Community Huntington Open Women’s Land (HOWL) Hygieia Homestead Hypatia Cooperative House I Street Co-op I-City Ian Southwest IC-Neo ICC Austin IDA IDEAAS Ranch IDEAL SOCIETY, Institute for the Development in Education, Arts and Leisure Immaculate Conception Benedictine Priory In La Kesh In Lak’ech Village InanItah Indiana Cohousing Indiana Self-Sufficiency Indigene Community Indigo (Big Island of Hawaii) Industrial Revolution Infintel – The Glenville Center for Conscious Evolution INGENIUM Expressive Arts Village Inner Peace & Prosperity – Creative Community Innisfree Village Intentional Communities Desk (ICD) Intentional Community House in West Louisville Intentional Faith Community Houses Intentional Living NYC intentional permaculture community Inter-Cooperative Council (ICC-Michigan) International Cooperative House (ICH) Into the Amazon Jungle Intown Neighborhood Place Intuitive and Intentional Living Iowa City Cohousing/Prairie Hill Ipsalu House Iron Mountain Ishmael Acres Island Cohousing Isle of Erraid It’s Really You – IzReaL.eu Ithaka Ittoen Iya for LandCulture and Resistance iYi TANGRA Alternative Community Jackson Place Cohousing Jamaica Plain Cohousing James Russell House Jasper Hall JehushuaCommune Jesus Christ’s Community at Hebron Jesus Christians Jesus People USA (JPUSA) Jesus’ Lakeside Retreat Jewel Creek Organic Farm & Ecovillage Jewel of the Sun (La Joya del Sol) Jewish Intentional Community Jindibah Intentional Community Jourdan Valley Joy of the Lord Covenant Community Worldwide,Inc Joy Town Farm Joyful Lifestyle JP Custom Living Jubilee Cohousing Julian Woods Community Jump Off Community Land Trust Juniper Hill Farm Jupiter Hollow Kailash Ecovillage Kakwa Ecovillage Cooperative Kalani Oceanside Retreat Kalikalos Kana-Gemeinschaft Kanatsiohareke (Ga na jo ha lay gay) Kanjini Co-Op Kapievi Karmily Haven & Farm Kashi Ashram Kasteel Nieuwenhoven Katywil Farm Community KaWay Monti NGO Kent Cooperative Housing Kentucky Tiny House Builder Community Kerala Commune Keveral Farm Keystone Ecological Urban Center Khakalaki Farm Ki bhavana Buddhism Kibbutz “Shoshana” (Rose) Kibbutz Kahila Buhyahad Kibbutz Ketura Kibbutz Migvan Kibbutz Mishol Kibbutz Tamuz Kibeti Ecovillage Kids Gardening Eden Kimbercote Farm Kin’s Domain Ringing Cedar Project Kindred Spirits King House Kingdom of Bahoudii Kingfisher Cohousing on Brookdale Kingman Hall Kingston House Kins Oases Foundation Kintore Farm Knotty Forest Kohatu Toa Eco-Village Koinonia Farm koLeA – Klosterdorf Komaja Kommune Niederkaufungen Kommunity Kondoria Kommunitt Beuggen Konohana Family Kookaburra Park Eco-Village Koots Ecovillage Kopali Communities Koro Island Community Kotare Village Kristian David School Kulana Goddess Sanctuary Kumah South Florida! Kwei Yagola L’Arche Australia L’Arche Canada L’Ecovillage du Prigord L’Inuksuk L’isola La Bergerie La Casa Querencia La Cit cologique de Ham-Nord La Ecovilla La Florida La Grande Cense Cohousing La Madera Community La Paz Eco Village La Poudrire La Rocca La’akea Community La’akea Permaculture Community Lafayette Morehouse Lah Lah Land Lake Claire Cohousing Lake Ellen Community Lake View Community Lake Village Homestead Farm Lama Foundation Lammas Lanark Ecovillage Land Lifeways Farm Land of Dawes Land Share BC Landelijke Vereniging Centraal Wonen Landsby Initiativ Lane County Catholic Worker Larimer Cohousing Community las Indias Laughing Dog Farm/CSA Laurel Nest Laurieston Hall Housing Co-operative Ltd. Lawrence Road House of Hospitality Laytonville Ecovillage LE CASE Ecovillage Le Manoir LEAPNOW: Transforming Education Lebensgarten Steyerberg Lebenshaus Schwbische Lebensraum Lee Abbey Aston Household Community Lemuria Center Lemurian Embassy Eco Village Retreat Lester House Lethbridge Sustainable Living Association Lettuce Bee Farm Leyton co-housing Libertalia Libertarian Village Liberties Liberty Village Cohousing Lichen Life Center Association Life community Noah’s Ark Life Works – A Home for Men who want to belong and have fun doing it. Lifeseed LifeWay Covenant Community Light Light of Freedom, Inc. Lily Plain Green Linder House Lindsbergs Kursgrd Listening Tree Cooperative Lisu Lodge Hill Tribe Adventure Little Flower Community Little River Tenancy in Common Little White Pines Live the Dream : Penfield House Living Earth Village Living Energy Farm Living Miracles Worldwide Living Presence Living Roots Ecovillage Living Spaces Living Well Community LivingStone Monastery Loaves and Fishes Community Loblolly Greenway Cohousing (LGC) Logan Square Cooperative Lolia Place Ecovillage Lomah Ecovillage London Community Lonesome Coconut Ranch Long Branch Environmental Education Center Long Haul Long Ridge Lane Los Angeles Eco-Village Los Portales Los Visionarios Lost Pine Earth Builders and Educational Center Lost Valley Education Center Lothlorien Farm (Lothlorien Rural Co-op) Lothlrien Cooperative House Lotus House Lotus Lodge Lovare Homestead love and wisdom estates Loving Earth Sanctuary LUBINKA Luminaria Sanctuary Luquillo Farm Sanctuary Luther House Lydia’s House Lyons Valley Village Maa Land Co-op Machaseh Mackenzie Heights Collective Madison Community Cooperative (MCC) Madison Street House Madre Grande Monastery Madrigal Madrona Center Magic Maharishi Peace Palace Fairfield Iowa Maiden, Mother, Crone Collective Maison Emmanuel Centre ducatif Maitreya Mountain Village Maitri House Malu ‘Aina Mama Roja Mammoth Pools Mana Gardens Mandala Mannawood Community Land Trust Many Tribes – New Tribalists Australia Manzanita Village Map Map Map Map Map Map Map Map Map Map Maple Ridge Marin Cohousing Mariposa Grove Marsh Commons Masala Co-op Maxwelton Creek Cohousing May Creek Farm Mayfair village of Denver- mcusa Mobile Communities USA Me Lucky Farms Meade County Kentucky Meadow Sky Meadow Wood Cohousing Community Mechatigan Garden Medieval/Fantasy Village Melbourne Cohousing Network Mele Nahiku Men’s Cohousing MendoDragon Mens Vision House Mercy & Grace Community Meristem Cooperative Merri Cohousing Merry Springs Health & Wellness Messiah Ministries Small Christian Community Messianic Hebrew Nazarene Israelite Vision metasofa artists community Metro Cohousing at Culver Way Mexico Oasis Micah House Micah Village Micah’s House Miccosukee Land Co-op Michigan Ecovillage Michigan House Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival mid-Missouri Cohousing Adventure Middle Road Community, The Middlesex Senior Cohousing Initiative Milagro Bay Milagro Cohousing Millrace Cohousing Mills Community House Millstone Co-op Millworks Cohousing MIM’s Place of Community Cooperative-Indiana Mimosa House Minnie’s House Misignwa Tribe Mission Peak Cohousing in Fremont Molino Creek Farming Collective Monan’s Rill Monasterio Mysticos Monkey Bone Ranch Monkton Wyld Court Mont Hope City Monterey Cohousing Moonlight Meadows Moonlighting Moonshadow Moonshine Tribe Moora Moora Co-operative Community Morningland Monastery Morninglory MorningSun Mosaic MOSAIC Co-op Mosaic Commons Moss Milk Commons Transformational Learning Community moss on the rocks farm Mother Earth Mother Earth Green Center Mother tribe in NYC Motheroak permaculture coop Mothers Trust Ashram/Lakeshore Interfaith Community mothership sanctuary Mount Madonna Center Mountain View Cohousing Community Mourne Grange Camphill Village Community MSU Student Housing Cooperative Mt. Joy Ecovillage Mt. Murrindal Cooperative Muddy Creek Satyagraha Muir Commons Mulberry Hill Mulvey Creek Land Co-operative Munksgrd Music Jamboree Muyol Willka Hampi (Project Taruka) MyHood Mystique Community N Street Cohousing Nahziryah Monastic Community Nakamura House Nama Namaste NAMASTE… Multi-Cultural, Sustainable Living Community of Belize C.A. Namast Greenfire Nanjemoy Collective Narara Ecovillage Nashville West Cohousing Natewa Bay Homestead Native Way Eco Naturafoundations Natural Farming, a Life Practice. Living Directly, Closely with the Earth Natural Island Dragonmill Natural Wisdom NATURALMENTE – Retreat Center (Nucleum for the Reconnection with the Essence within the Being) Nature’s Pace Sanctuary Nature’s Path Eco-community Nature, On It’s Way Naturist Eco Village Nazarenes of Niagara NBCOHO Free Land Net Zero Community Neighborhood for Mindful Living, A Cohousing Community Nelson Land Group Neopolitan Neot Semadar Nerd vs Nature.com Neruda Network for a New Culture Nevada City Co-housing New Braj New Brighton Cohousing New Community Cooperative New Covenant Farms New Creation Christian Community New Culture DC New Dawn Project New Earth New Earth Mountain Village New Earth Song Cohousing LLC New England Farm Village Project New Jerusalem Community New Jewish Communities New Koinonia New Kurukshetra New Leaf Eco Commuity New Lebanon Mobile Home Park New Medina Village New Mexico Farmer Nomads Circuit Community New Natives New Oasis For Life-the Second Home of Lifechanyuan (New Site I ) New Roots Cooperative New Talavana New Tribal Nation New View Cohousing New Vrindaban New World at Anela’s Hawaiian Farm New York City Cohousing Group Newberry Place Cohousing Community Newbold House NEXT EVOLUTION COMMUNITY Next Step Integral Niche / Tucson Community Land Trust Nickel City Housing Cooperative NieuCommunities No Name No name No Name no where ranch Noldorath Forest Community Nomad Cohousing Nomadic Peoples Republic none Noosa Forest Retreat Holisitc Permaculture Community North American Students of Cooperation North Coast Retreat North Mountain Community Land Trust Northern Berkshire Cohousing Community Northern California EcoVillage Network Northern Lights Northern Sun Farm Co-op not yet named Nottingham Cooperative Nsumi Collective Nubanusit Neighborhood & Farm NW NJ Ecovillage Nyland O’Keeffe House O’Quinn Mountain Village World Community O.U.R ECOVILLAGE Oak Creek Commons Oak Forest Collaborative Oak Park Community Oak Spirit Sanctuary Shamanic Wiccan Church of Nature Oakcreek Community–Stillwater Oklahoma Oakland Morehouse Oakleigh Meadow Cohousing Oasis Oasis – Women’s Hacker House Oasis de Lentiourel Oasis Eco-Village Oasis Farm Oasis Gardens Oasis Homestead Obed Hostel Oberlin Student Cooperative Association (OSCA) Oblate Community of St Paul – IOCU Occupy DFW OE Fenghuang Collective Ofek Shalom Cooperative House Ohio Homestead Community OIKOS INTENTIONAL COMMUNITY OJAI PRIVATE CO-OP Okanogan Permaculture School – Community Okunevo Ol’ Wondermoth Olam Habah Village Old Catholic Benedictines of the Resurrection Olympia Cooperative Housing Association Omaha Green Cohousing Omega House Omega Institute for Holistic Studies One Accord One Another Community One Community One Heart Community One Island One New Man – Kingdom Of God One Song Eco-Spirit Village one world commune/philippines chapter Ontario Eco-Village (s) Project (s) Open Circle Open House OpenFree Optimum Living Alliance Oran Mor Community Orange Twin Conservation Community Orca Landing Order of Melchizedek Order of Saint Benedict organic music space Organic Tribe Foundation Organic Vegetarian Tantra Yoga Homestead ORIGO WELLNESS SANCTURARY Orthodox Commune Osa Mountain Village Osho Miasto Osterweil House Oswego Center For Sustainable Living Otamatea Eco-Village Our community vision, Looking for a tribe! Our Lady of Mepkin Abbey ourtowncommunity Outpost Homestead Owen House Oxen Community (working title) Ozark Dawn for Women Only! (Male Visitors Welcome) PAANCI International Pachamama Bliss Monkey Healing Center PachaMama Village Pacific Cultural Center Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community Pacifica Pacifica Intentional Community PaciVegan Pair O’Dice Machers Farm Paititi Ecovillage Panterra Paradise Paradise Gardens Paradise Hills Organic Farm Paradise in Argentina Park Ridge Nonprofit Center Parker Street Co-op Pathways CoHousing PAZ Ecovillage PDX Commons Peace and Freedom Peace Trail International Peaceatorium Peacefield Farm Peaceful Babe Farm PeaceMob Gardens Peachtree Community peleaina peaceful arts Penington Friends House Peninsula Park Commons Pennine Camphill Community Penyon Bay Ecological Village People’s Research Center peregrinus perma Nomadbase north lower Austria (osterreich PermaBurn Permaculture-inspired Farming Community Permala Permalogica Permaship Phoenix Commons Pi’ilani Piedmont Ecovillage Pika at M.I.T. pika at MIT Pilot House Pinakarri Community Inc Pine Grove Community Forming Pine Street Cohousing Pinecone Farms PinellasCohousing Pineolia Pinnacle Cohousing Pioneer Co-op Pioneer Living Community Pioneer Valley Piracanga EcoCommunity Piscataquis Village Project Pitt st Placitas Sage Cohousing Plainfield Christian Science Church, Independent Planet Repair Institute Plankton House Plants for a Future Play nexus Pleasant Glade Pleasant Hill Cohousing Pleasant Valley Sanctuary Plenitude Ecovillage Plow Creek Plowshare Farm Polcum Springs Polestar Gardens Community Poo Frog Ranch Poole’s Land Popai Hawaii Eco Beachfront Homestead/Organic Sustainable Farm Pope Street Reserve Cohousing Porlammin Luontoyhteis Port Townsend EcoVillage Portland Cohousing Possibilitarian Regenerative Community Homestead (PORCH) Pot Luck Farms Powhatan Ecovillage PRAG House Pragtree Farm Prairie Creek Settlement Prairie Onion Cohousing Prairie Sky Cohousing Cooperative Prairiemoon sustainable living Praterra Pratt-Ashland Cooperative Prescott College Primitive Spring House Primitive Vegan/Vegetarian Princeton Cooperative Progressive Valley Co-op Project Anononia Project Humanity & Earth Project Off Road Project PA house co op Project TriStar PROJETORGONE Providence Zen Center ProWoKultA Proyecto O Couso Prudence Crandall House Psalm 133 Ministries – A Hebrew Roots Mindset, Spirit-Filled, Yahshua is Messiah – Torah Observant Puget Ridge Cohousing Pumpkin Hollow Retreat Center Puna Green Angel Farm Punta Mona Pura Fruta Pura Tierra Eco Village Intentional Community – Costa Rica Purani Valley Purple Rose Collective Putney Commons Q Q’Inti Calli, Spiritual & Holistic Health Retreat Quailamoon Quaker House Residential Community Quaker Intentional Village-Canaan Quaker Monastery Quayside Village Que Fina Collective Quercus QuestionMark Farm Quetzalcoatl Community Quetzalcoatl, Shaman’s Community Quince Cohousing Quindaro Gardens Mutual Aid Society for Low-cost Living and Retirement in Kansas City Quinta do Vale do Carvalho Qumbya Co-op Radical Living Radish Collective Rainbow Cottage Rainbow Mansion Rainbow Valley Agricultural Cooperative Rainbow Valley Community Rainbows End RainSong Raleigh Cohousing Ralston Creek CoHousers RanchHome – Your Farm and Ranch Home Rancho Delicioso rancho gallo rico Rancho La Chicotona (Survival community) Rancho La Salud Village Rancho Margot Rancho San Roque Rancho Sol y Mar Rancho Amigos Eco Village Rancholargo Granja Cultural RareBirds Housing Cooperative Ravens’ Roost Cohousing Ravin&Savvy Raw-Wisdom Vegan Community Raw/Organic/Superfood/Permaculture/Low-no impact housing Rawtreat RealityCheck Reba Place Fellowship Rebel! Rebuild! Rewild Red Clover Red Clover Collective Red Earth Farms Red Horseshoe Ranch Red Water Acres Redding Revival Community Redfield Community Reevis Mountain School Refsnsgade Refugio Regen Co-op of Pomona Renaissance Gardens Renaissance House Renaissance Humanist Community Renaissance Village Homes Cohousing Reservoir Hill Mutual Homes Rest For Weary Homes – Oshawa Intentional Community – Ecovillage – http://www.durhamtakesaction.ca Community / Social Justice / Fun Restoration.community Retiringearlyfromratrace Co housing Initiative Revelation Sky Rhiannon Community Richmond Cohousing Riddle Farm Rio Tranquillo Riparia River City Housing Collective River Farm River Ridge River Rock Commons Rivers Edge DWCC Riverside Co-housing Riverside Cohousing Riverside Community Riverside Raincross Cohousing Riverton Community Housing Road to Home co-living Roberts Creek Cohousing RobinWood Berlin Rock Garden Springs Rock Ridge Community, Inc Rocky Corner Cohousing Rocky Hill Cohousing Rocky Top Living Roots Cooperative Rose Creek Village RoseWind Cohousing Rosewood Manor Roughcraft Ecovillage Round River Community Rowe Camp & Conference Center Ruby Farms Russmaican the world a better Race Ruths’ House Saba Cooperative SabbathHouse Sacred Earth Sacred Earth Community Sacred Garden of EdenHope Sacred Garden Sanctuary Sacred Mountain Sanctuary Sacred Spiral Family – Open Source Creed and Intentional Community Sacred Suenos Saddiqi Rose Sadhana Forest Safe Haven Ranch Safe Haven Village Sage Valley SageHill Place sailing the farm – sailing/boatbuilding coop. Saint Francis & Therese Catholic Worker House Saint Francis Catholic Worker House of Hospitality Saint Michael’s Eco Village Sal’s Place Salmon Falls Land Association Salt Spring Centre of Yoga San Andres San Antonio Cohousing San Diego Eco-housing San Diego Spiritual Retreat Center San Diego Spiritual Retreat Center – Lakeside House Base Camp San Mateo Ecovillage Sanctuary Sanctuary in NW Ohio Sanctuary of DRAGOYOGARD & EISMER (European Institute for SOUND MEDICINE Education & Research) Sanctuary Village Sanctuary: Urban Axis Sand River Cohousing Sandhill Farm Sandywoods Farm Sangha of Earth Awakening Sanna Culturemanor Santa Barbara Student Housing Cooperative Santa Monica CoHousing Group Santa Rosa Creek Commons Sapling Community Sasona Cooperative Sassafras Bandits Permaculture Farm Sat Yoga Ashram Savannah Tribe Intentional Community Savitar Kin’s Domains Sawyer Hill EcoVillage SBA Farms Collective Schloss Blumenthal School of Integrated Living (SOIL) Seattle Aging in Community Secular-humanist collapse preparedness group Sede Kavannah Sede Kavannah, Livermore Sedona Unlimited SEED International Ecovillage near Cahuita National Park SeedPod Co-op SEEEDs Seekers and Settlers Seekers of Unity in the Body of Christ Self-Sustaining Society SelfDesign Learning Community Selva Rica Seneca Treehouse Project Senior Activists Living Together Sequoia Village Cohousing Serene Light Gardens Serenity Serenity Cabin Serenity Gardens Eco Village Servants of Jesus Community Setivalley Integrated Organic Farm Seven Acres Cooperative Seven Suns Community Shadow Mountain Cohousing Shadowlake Village Shakty Global Shalom House Shamanic Living Center Shambala SHANGRI LA Shannon Farm Community Shanti-shanti village Sharing Circle Gardens Sharing Springs Sharingwood Cohousing She Farm Sheep River Commons Eco Village Shekinah Eco Village Shepherd Village Shepherdsfield Community Sherman St. Artists Coop Sherwood Co-op Shiloah Valley Community Shiloh Springs EcoVillage Short Mountain Sanctuary, Inc. Sieben Linden Ecovillage Silver Leaf Silver Sage Village Silver Sage Village Senior Cohousing Silver Sun Womyn’s Community Simon Community Simone Weil and Peter Maurin House Monastic Simple Joys Sircadia Sirius Community Siskiyou Householder Refuge Sister Brother Tribe Sivananda Ashram Yoga Farm Sketch Pad Collective Skokomish Farms Skrplanet Sky Meadow Retreat Skyview Acres Slade Hall Slocum House SLVOrganics Thrive Community Small Farm Training Center SmallWorld Cambodia Smart Progressives Smiltenei un Latvijai (for Smiltene and for Latvija) Smithfield Community Snow Lake Keep Social Progress Agents Community Socially Different Sockenstugan SoFair Farms Sofia Cooperative House SOHOland Sojourner Truth House Solairus, EcoVillage Solarium Solborg Some Place Special SomerVille Ecovillage Song of the Morning Songaia Cohousing Community SongCroft Sonoma County Cohousing Sonora Cohousing Soulshine Soul~Hive Farm and Retreat Source Temple South Jersey Village – Intentional Community Meetup Group South knowlesville Landtrust South of Monadnock Community Southern Nevada Cohousing Southside Park Cohousing Southwest Sufi Community Sovereign Christian Patriot Mission Sowing Circle Sparrow Hawk Village speargrass spectrum garden Spectrum Gardens Spinnaker Eleos Community SpiritServ Senior Cohousing Spiti ton Kentavron | Pelion Holistic Education Centre Spooky Hollow Spring Valley Springhill Cohousing Community Springtree Community Springwater St Johns Hurst Green St. Ambrose Catholic Worker St. Gregory’s Abbey St. Joseph Farm St. Louis Ecovillage Network St. Thomas Catholic Worker House Stacken Stahlhammer STAND Center Etho-Community Stardust Center for Sustainability and Community Stargazer EcoVillage Starland Retreat Center/Campground Starseed Gardens Starseed Healing Sancuary Staten Island Parent Collective Stealth Wilderness Survival Village Stelle Community stelle turchine Stepping Stones Housing Co-op Steward Community Woodland Stewart Little Co-op Stiftelsen Stjrnsund Still Spirit Community Project Stolplyckan Stone Curves Cohousing Community Stone Soup Cooperative Stottville intentional community Struggle Mountain Student Housing NYC Students’ Cooperative Students’ Cooperative Association Su Casa Catholic Worker Community Suderbyn Summit Avenue Cooperative Sun Lotus Sun Sea CanYon Yang Sunburst Sunburst Fellowship Sunflower Co-op Sunflower Cohousing Sunflower House Cooperative Sunflower River Sunhouse Co-op SunPoint Farm Sanctuary Sunrise Farm Community Sunrise Ranch Sunset House Sunshine collective Sunshine Ranch Sunward Cohousing Sunwise Co-op SUPERNATURAL SANCTUARY SurrealEstates Sushi Tribe Sustainability park Istra Sustainable Earth EcoFarm SUTIWABY SW Missouri Unschoolers Swan’s Market Cohousing Swedish CoHousing Network Sweet Pond Eco Community Sweetwater Community Land Trust Sweetwater Zen Center Sydney Cohousing Inc. Symbiosis Ecovillage SynchroniciTree Sacramento Synchronicity Central Texas SYNERGY COMMUNITY – MAUI CONSCIOUS COMMUNITY Synergy House Cooperative Syntropy Cooperative House Slheimar Tacoma Catholic Worker Tadpole Manor Taiz Community Take Old, Make New Takes a Village Takoma Village Cohousing Taliesin Collective Tam House Taman Petanu Eco Neighborhood Tamarack Knoll Community Tamera – Healing Biotope I Tanglemoss Homesteading Community Tar River Permaculture Project Tara Cotta Tara Mandala Retreat Center TaraEden EcoVillage Tashirat Tasman Ecovillage Tate Estate – Hartford IC Teaching Drum Outdoor School TecaOtoka Co-Housing Self Sustainable Community Technicolor Tree Tribe Tecoma Valley Township Tel Keshet Temescal Commons Cohousing Temescal Creek Cohousing Tempelhof Template Homestead Temple Druid Community Ten Stones Tent City (Lakewood) Terra Firma Terra Frutis TerraSante Village & Terrasante Community/Sacred Earth neighborhood TerraVie Terre Rouge creek farm Terripin Valley Community Test Community Test Community – DO NOT APPROVE Test Community 2 Texas Intentional Living Community (to be renamed later) The Alchemical Nursery The Arcadia Ranch for Community Care The Ardens The Barley Jar – Urban Ecovillage and Spiritual Community The Barnyard Homestead The Best is Yet to Come The Big Earth House The Blackburn House The Blueberry Patch The Bonobo Odyssey The Bridge House The Camp at Ozark Acres The Cascadia Society for Social Working The Cauldron Community The Chai Life The Chicago Collective The church near Springfield, Missouri The Circle of Natural Diviners The CoLibri Urban Housing Project The Common Unity Project The Commons at Windekind The Commons on the Alameda The Community The Community in Pulaski The Community of the Holy Trinity The Community Project The Cottages At Willett Brook The Draw Permaculture Sanctuary The Earnshaw Ecohouse The Ecovillage at Currumbin The Elements The Establishment The Farm CA The Farm Community in Summertown, Tennessee The Father’s House The Feedbag Ann Arbor The Fellowship Community of the Rudolf Steiner Fellowship Foundation The Fellowship for Mother Earth The Freehaus open source housing project (GERMANY) The Frum Farm – Shaare Shamayim The Garden The Garden of Autism The Garden of Eden The Gardenhouse The Gathering Place The Gathering Place The Glen Ivy Center The Grail The grove The Grove The Hampton House The Hedge The Hella Tight House The Hill Circle The Hive The Hive Co-op The Hive Mind The Holliston House Share and Homestead Project The Home Farm The Homestead at Denison University The House – Commune Thailand The House of Commons The HUB Housing Cooperative The International Temple of Satan the jaguar tribe The Julian Project The Kibbutz Movement The Land Community The Laurel Manor: Food not Lawns The Lavra The Love Israel Family The Mac House The Mariposa Group The Mennonite Worker The Metahive Project The Midden The Mothership The Mountain Of The Lords House The Neo Brotherhood The Neobrotherhood The Next.Us of Arizona The North Hill at Staurolite The Nuit House – The Abrahadabra Institute LLC’s Kibbutzim The Nyingma Mandala Training Program The Ojai Foundation The Olympia Light House Homestead The One Second, One Year After community The Open State Community The Orchard The Orion House The Othona Community The Paradise Builders The Patchwork Cooperative The Phoenix Cooperative House The Pittsburgh Cohousing Group The Play Lands The Portal The Postlip Community The Primal Village The Priorities Institute The Red House Community, Saint Paul The Responsible Community The Retreat at New Covenant The Rogue Elephant The Roost The Rose Colored Forest The Rose Colored Forest The Rose Colored Forest The Rose Colored Forest The Roundhouse Community The Sage Projects The Sage Projects The San Diego Wake Up House The Sanctuary — Vegan Community The Sanctuary Community The Seventh Way The Shalom Project The Shire The Shire ( Granja La Comarca) The Sugar Shack The Telaithrion Project by Free and Real The Transition Headquarters The Tribe of Kelta The Vale The Vandwellings The Village on Sewanee Creek The Village Project The Well at Willen The Weyst The Wild Cooperative The WingSeed IC Project the world commune nepal the yellow and purple house The Yoga Farm The Zen Society The andu Project Theotokos House This Common Life Three Arrows Co-operative Society, Inc. Three Rivers Tribe Three Springs Three Trails CoHousing ThreeHands Ecovillage Thrifty & Green Creative Collective Thrifty Acres ThrowBackTothegoodolddays Tibetan Buddhist Learning Center Tierra Nueva Cohousing TierraLuz Tiller Ecovillage Timbaktu Collective, The Tina Yoxtheimer, Home/Land Owner Tinggrden Tipi People Tir Tairngire To Be Determined Tolstoy Farm. Toronto Activist House Toronto Ecovillage Project Torri Superiore Ecovillage Tortuga Tortuga Bay Touching Earth Sangha Touchstone Cohousing ToyKalapawMi ToyKalapawMi Rural Community Traditional Catholic Community Tranquility Transcendent Seeds of Paradise transitions Tree of Life TreeStone Village Tres Hermanos Tres Placitas del Rio Tribal Simplicity Tribe of Likatien Tribodar Learning Center Triform Camphill Community Triform Camphill Community Triform Camphill Community Triform Camphill Community Trillium Creek Trillium Farm Community Trillium Hollow Cohousing Community TRINITY Christian PRIORY Trinity Living Triple Point Cohousing True Nature Community/ La Comunidad de Verdadera Naturaleza Trying to Start a Community Tuatha-carrig Tiny Home Eco-village Tui Spiritual and Educational Trust Tullstugan Collective housing unit Tulsa Senior Cohousing Community (forming) Turanga Farm Eco-hamlet Turtle Village Project Turtle’s Back Land Cooperative Twelve Tribes Twelve Tribes – Preserved Seed Farm/Uchovan Semnko Twelve Tribes Communaut de Sus Twelve Tribes Community at Peppercorn Creek Farm Twelve Tribes Community at the Morning Star Ranch Twelve Tribes Community at The Woolshed, Picton Twelve Tribes Community in Boulder Twelve Tribes Community in Cambridge Twelve Tribes Community in Chattanooga Twelve Tribes Community in Ithaca Twelve Tribes Community in Katoomba, Blue Mountains Twelve Tribes Community in Manitou Springs, CO Twelve Tribes Community in Nelson Twelve Tribes Community in Plymouth Twelve Tribes Community in Rutland Twelve Tribes Community in Vista Twelve Tribes Community in Winnipeg Twelve Tribes Community on the Lake of the Ozarks Twelve Tribes Comunidade de Londrina Twelve Tribes of Israel (Hawaii) Twilight Farmstead and Learning Center Twin Oaks Intentional Community Twin Pines Country Plantation and Guest Ranch Two Acre Wood Two Echo Cohousing Two Piers Ubuntu Ecovillage Udgaarden Umphakatsi Peace Eco-Village South Africa Unadilla Community Farm Union Acres Union Corners Cohousing Unitarian Universalist Justice Ministry Unity Unity Kitchen Community of the CW Universe Community University Earth Upper Langley Upper Ridge Cottages Urban Oasis Urban Village CoHousing Urban Vision Urdhva Uruguay World Community USALL Christian Monastery Utah Valley Commons Utopiaggia Utopian Garden UU Cascades Retreat Project Vaia (Vilda apostlar i action) Vail House Valhalla Valle de Sensaciones Vallersund Grd Valley Dunes Valley Oaks Village Valley Of Laughter Valley of Light Valley of the Moon(TM) Eco Demonstration Community Valley Veg Cohousing Valslillegrd Valterra Village eCohousing Valverde Commons Vancouver Cohousing Varsity House Vashon Cohousing Vedrica Forest Gardens Vegan Hills Vegan Homeland Vegan Peaceful Virginia Community Vegan Village vegans gathering for intentional community Veganville Ecovillage Vegetable Ranch Ventura Urban Homestead Cooperative Venusins Verein Keimblatt Vesta Co-op Vesta Community Concepts Vialen Vibe Village Victorian Park Village Active Adult Cohousing villa villa koola 2 Villa Westergrd Village Cohousing Community Village Hearth Cohousing Village Hill Cohousing Village of the Shining Stones Village of Values Village Terraces Cohousing Neighborhood Villages at Crest Mountain VillaNueva Vince’s Veggie Vault Vine & Fig Tree Farm/Community Virtue Land(planning) Vivekananda Monastery and Retreat Center Vivekananda Vedanta Society Vlierhof Volunteer-Apprentice at Shamanic Healing Lodge Wahat al-Salam ~ Neve Shalom (Oasis of Peace) Walden Farm Walden Somogy Walker Creek Community Walnut City Homestead Walnut Commons Walnut Grove Walnut House Cooperative Walnut Street Co-op Wanderers End Sanctuary -TN Wasatch Commons Washington DC Hobbit House Village Project Washington Home Share Washington Village Waterloo Co-operative Residence Inc. Waterloo Region Cohousing Ecovillage Watermargin Cooperative Watermyn (part of PEACH – Providence Eastside Association for Cooperative Housing) Waterside (closed) Wave Way Truth Life Community We Grow From Here & Growing Together We’Moon Land Weekapaug Grove Welcome Here Circle of Light Community Network – Rainbow Tribes Welcome to the Tribe Wellspring Community Wellspring Lifestyle Retreat west side Role Playing Game co-operative co-housing Western ME Homestead/Prepper Group Westport Cohousing Westwood Cohousing Wheelock Mountain Farm White Buffalo Farm White Buffalo Farm, a Farm-Based Ecovillage White Cloud Sanctuary White Hawk Ecovillage White Pine Cohousing Community White Rock Crossing White Rose Catholic Worker Farm Whitehall Intentional Society, Inc. Whole Health Foundation Whole Village Ecovillage WholeWay Home Wholistic Community Network IRC Wicoti Mitawa Wide Range – Cooperative Community Network WILA Farms Wild Abundance Community Farm Wild Sage Cohousing WildCraft EcoVillage Wilderland Wilderness Community Wildflower Ecovillage Wildflower Ranch Willow Springs Wind Spirit Community Windhorse IMH Windsnest WindSong Cohousing Community Windward Windy Hill Farm Cooperative Winona Catholic Worker Winslow Cohousing Group WinSol3 Winter Garden Wiscoy Valley Community Land Cooperative Wise Acres Cooperative Association Wise Woman Center / Laughing Rock Farm Wisteria WOGENO Mnchen eG Wolf Creek Lodge Wolf Den Hollow Wolf Willow Cohousing Womyn Flourish Farms Wonder Village, Houston, TX Woodacre Co-Housing Woodard Lane Cohousing Woodburn Hill Farm Woodcrest Woodhenge woodrat Woolley Mammoth Woolsey Corner Working Title – Order of the Phoenix WORSHP House WOW House (Wild Old Women) WWOOF INDIA GLOBAL VILLAGE WWOOFLK Wyomanock wyoming workers Wxthuset Vdd Yahara Linden Coop yamagishi-Vereinigung YAN YANBY Yarrow Ecovillage Yeshua’s Community yewlandia yoengju educo-village Yoga Eco-Village Yogi Village Yolitia You name it – Sustainable YouTokia ILC Youtopia! Yubia Permanent Autonomous Zone Yulupa Cohousing Yurttown Zacchaeus House ZEGG – Centre for Experimental Cultural Design Zeitgeist Collective Zen Buddhist Temple – Ann Arbor Zen martial arts monastery Zentrum der Einheit Schweibenalp Zephyr Creek Crossing Zephyr Valley Community Co-op Zim Zam zonaremix coHameaux Les Bernaches covia

Read the original here:

Map – Fellowship for Intentional Community

Posted in Intentional Communities | Comments Off on Map – Fellowship for Intentional Community