[golergka]

Your comment is exactly what I assumed and it doesn't contradict my comment in any way. Yes, these people possibly don't identify as libertarians, but their community is the exact reason why they actually should.

Libertarianism is about building a community that you like, in any possible way, without having to agree with anyone else about what is "exploitation" and all that ideological stuff. Libertarianism's goals is exactly aligned with what "hippie communists" (stereotype that I use here in good faith, to omit boring argument about strict ideological definitions) want, as long as they don't try to force their views on other people.

[mkstowegnv]

There is every likely and unlikely combination of political beliefs to be found in every population including commune members. But I will go out on a limb and try to speak for that population. Relatively few see the communal life as a viable prescription for society as a whole, and most believe that all political and economic systems involve painful tradeoffs. On the other hand most look with horror at purist libertarians rejecting as much enforced sharing in general society as possible. This philosophy is irreconcilable with the view of many, inside and outside of communes who strongly believe that having many kinds of sharing - enforced by a government - is necessary for any civilization worth living in, and eternal vigilance against all slippery slopes presented by governments and corporations is unavoidable (and is not simply avoided by letting free markets run amuck). Many of us are thoroughly familiar with your arguments and adamantly reject them as dangerous, simplistic and in effect evil thinking that we will resist with everything we have.

[golergka]

And yet, these arguments remain theoretical talk - while existence of these communities, where all sharing is implemented without government or threat of violence, only serves to confirm libertarianism.