Housing

Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:37 am by Targe

I don't see this anywhere else, thought I'd start a thread. All ideas for your Doomstead, share novel construction techniques, ideas you've seen elsewhere, weird houses in the news, ect!

Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:39 am by Targe

I'll go first:

Chinese architect develops 'habitat egg' tiny house capsule.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1 ... 55,00.html

Beijing - Dai Haifei, 24, built the egg-shaped abode out of bamboo strips and matting for around US$1,000 (€765). For the past two months, he has been living outside his office.

Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:41 pm by mousewizard

I've looked at the tiny cabins concepts and other miniaturized housing and the big question for me is where do you put your stuff if you're into anything serious in the way of gardening or woodworking or whatever? Sitting in your tiny cabin or egg with your laptop is nice, but that's about all you can do. Even the guy above goes to another location for his job. And you can bet he has to go to some central bathing or showering facility to clean himself up.

I'm thinking one would need some kind of modular system that would allow you to expand your storage capabilities at the least. Of course, there's the small matter of who owns the land you're sitting on, utilities and infrastructure connections, etc. A lot of these ideas are tremendously dependent on BAU.

Then we look at a doomer scenario. Best approach I can think of is a group of like-minded folk getting together and building some sort of core facility that has an institutional kitchen, dining/meeting hall, showers and toilets, laundry area, etc. Then people could add their own small shelters just for sleeping and privacy. A central solar hot water system could provide radiant floor heating piped to each shelter.

The central facility would have to be constructed with fire resistance and defensibility in mind. Earth bag, adobe, or earthship-style tire construction. The shelters, not so much.

I'm just guessing here, but it would probably take a collection of at least ten families working in concert to fund and construct such a compound, with each providing a bunch of sweat equity and about $10k each to purchase the equipment and furnishings that would be required. Someone would have to come up with the land, or the group could form a corporation and lease land from a larger ranch provided they could maintain the cash flow necessary until everything fell apart.

I just don't see a solo home working out as a doomstead. Someone needs to keep watch 24/7, and the sheer diversity of skills needed to support food production / processing, medical, power, comms, transport, maintenance, and so forth is simply too much for any single person or family. So you wind up with more of a fort or small castle than a single family doomstead.

And now we're moving off from just housing to creating a small community. And that's not an easy thing to do.

Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:01 pm by jetgraphics

mousewizard wrote: I just don't see a solo home working out as a doomstead. Someone needs to keep watch 24/7, and the sheer diversity of skills needed to support food production / processing, medical, power, comms, transport, maintenance, and so forth is simply too much for any single person or family. So you wind up with more of a fort or small castle than a single family doomstead.

And now we're moving off from just housing to creating a small community. And that's not an easy thing to do.

I agree that we need to shift our focus from minifortresses of solitude to defensible communities. And current architecture is unsuitable, as well as unsustainable for post - SHTF living.

One of my favorite solutions, the dual ring village, requires about 200 - 400 charter members to make it work.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ring_life
shelter-dual-ring-villages-t1705.html

Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:09 am by Megadoom

Be careful, the guy out in New Mexico who builds homes out of garbage had his license stripped, his permits revoked, and all manner of state legal action taken against him. Simply because his home wasn't built the "normal" way.

Yes, that's right. You're not free to build your abode any oh way you feel in this country. Do you feel the chains yet?

Megadoom

Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:26 am by jetgraphics

Megadoom wrote:Be careful, the guy out in New Mexico who builds homes out of garbage had his license stripped, his permits revoked, and all manner of state legal action taken against him. Simply because his home wasn't built the "normal" way.

Yes, that's right. You're not free to build your abode any oh way you feel in this country. Do you feel the chains yet?

Megadoom

Very true - for 'subjects' who have no property rights.

FWIW - look up your state's delegation of authority over private property versus estate (real estate).
I have yet to find one law that violates the private property rights of an American.
But since 1935, most Americans have surrendered their private property rights in exchange for access to "Entitlements" of socialism (via FICA).

Free inhabitants absolutely own their domicile, as private property.
Residents who reside at residences, hold qualified ownership of their estate.

More info:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/454

Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:42 am by Megadoom

jetgraphics wrote:
Megadoom wrote:Be careful, the guy out in New Mexico who builds homes out of garbage had his license stripped, his permits revoked, and all manner of state legal action taken against him. Simply because his home wasn't built the "normal" way.

Yes, that's right. You're not free to build your abode any oh way you feel in this country. Do you feel the chains yet?

Megadoom

Very true - for 'subjects' who have no property rights.

FWIW - look up your state's delegation of authority over private property versus estate (real estate).
I have yet to find one law that violates the private property rights of an American.
But since 1935, most Americans have surrendered their private property rights in exchange for access to "Entitlements" of socialism (via FICA).

Free inhabitants absolutely own their domicile, as private property.
Residents who reside at residences, hold qualified ownership of their estate.

More info:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/454

access to socialism - :lol:

Saying this tells me you understand zip about Socialism, a form of government that has "never" existed as defined. The American indians came the closest.

Do I really need to dig up countless articles demonstrating the state power that has been used to come down on folks who decide to put up their own idea of a home? Especially when it comes to waste desposal.

That doesn't mean that there are people out there getting away with it and exercising their "free" right, but on the other hand it doesn't mean officials won't come down on them at some point.

Megadoom

Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:09 am by jetgraphics

Megadoom wrote:access to socialism - Saying this tells me you understand zip about Socialism, a form of government that has "never" existed as defined. The American indians came the closest.

Do I really need to dig up countless articles demonstrating the state power that has been used to come down on folks who decide to put up their own idea of a home? Especially when it comes to waste desposal.

That doesn't mean that there are people out there getting away with it and exercising their "free" right, but on the other hand it doesn't mean officials won't come down on them at some point.

Megadoom

I would have agreed with you before I read the law. I cannot now. I was in my late 30's before circumstances compelled me to read law - which is a chore.

However, I do not dispute that the world's greatest propaganda ministry would persuade you to not investigate further. That's their greatest victory - convincing millions to not read the laws, on the books. (Even Congress enacts laws that the members have not read!)

Until you see it with your own eyes, available in any county courthouse law library, you will not believe me. In fact, I am not infallible and may have made a mistake. Go find ONE LAW that violates the natural and personal liberty of the free inhabitant, American national, domiciled upon his private property within the boundaries of the United States of America. I've been looking for one, since 1989, and still can't find one.

99.999% of the unpleasant laws are limited in application to duly enrolled and enumerated socialist U.S. citizens / U.S. residents residing at residences, held with qualified ownership, bought with "funny munny", and due to their status, are subject to rules, regulations and strict obedience.

Homework assignment for LAW 101:

If you wish to believe the "experts" who tell you what to know, do not bother. If you wish to know the truth that the "experts" do not wish you to know, take some time and delve into a legal reference (dictionary, etc).

Determine the (legal) difference between the following 9 pairs:

1. national v. citizen
2. sovereign v. subject
3. individual v. person
4. inhabitant v. resident
5. domicile v. residence
6. natural liberty v. civil liberty
7. personal liberty v. political liberty
8. private property v. estate (real and personal property)
9. absolute ownership v. qualified ownership

Feel free to use multiple sources, and try to find any contradictory meanings or definitions.

Hint: All the "good" terms are on the left side.

More info:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/951
Re: Pauperization
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/361

Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:15 am by jetgraphics

FYI - Socialism abolishes private property ownership and replaces it with collective ownership, with the State at the top.
Need proof?
Collective Ownership by the State -
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... ender.aspx

"Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."

Read Title 12 USC Sec. 411, wherein said notes are defined as "obligations" of the U.S. government to pay lawful money on demand.
That promise was repudiated in House Joint Resolution 192, in June 1933.
So how did Congress' worthless IOUs get backed by YOUR goods and labor?
Answer: voluntary socialism, via FICA.

Re: Socialism and Communism
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/1675

Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:38 am by jetgraphics

It was not my intention to hijack the thread into a discourse on the republican form of government.
However, it does appear that readers should know that the bureaucratic obstacles to constructing their domicile of choice is based on consent.

Frankly, there is no consensus in the "Patriot" community, with respect to this information. I can only urge each reader to take the time to go READ THE LAW for themselves.

There are some tantalizing clues, in plain sight - such as found in the Articles of Confederation (1777).
Read I, II, and IV, and pay attention to the "excepted classes".

Other powerful concepts: sovereignty of the American people, absolute ownership of private property, and liberty (natural and personal) unveil a completely different view about American law.

For example, we know that the Declaration of Independence spells out job #1 = secure rights, and job #2 = govern those who consent.
So if one hasn't consented, all government can do is help secure your rights.

Then there's that pesky 'militia' situation - where one is obligated to train, fight and die - on command. That is certainly a violation of one's inalienable right to life, liberty and so forth. It's been part of the law since 1777.
But the militia, as defined, is limited to CITIZENS, not nationals. So an American national non-citizen was not so obligated to train, fight and die.

If one can be "born a citizen", obligated to train, fight and die, then he's a "born slave". That contradicts EVERYTHING that founded the U.S.A., and violates the ban on involuntary servitude in the 13th amendment.

(I won't ruin the surprise, but let's just say if you carefully read the 13th and the 14th amendments, with respect to singular versus plural, you will "get it".)

To the best of my knowledge, in reading the law, American nationals who absolutely own their domicile are not subject to nor object of the laws that are only applicable to those who consent.
(A good example can be found in the Texas Constitution. Look up the delegation of power to tax. It will be limited to estate (real and personal property). Then look up the sole reference to "private property". It will state that the government has to ASK PERMISSION to place a lien to recover the costs of removing waterworks from said private property. And if the owner says "NO", no lien, no charge.)

Housing

Housing

Re: Housing

Re: Housing

Re: Housing

Re: Housing

Re: Housing

Re: Housing

Re: Housing

Re: Housing

Re: Housing

Who is online