[WalterBright]

Nothing at all about libertarianism prevents people from equally sharing the fruits of their labor. Libertarianism is about not forcing people to share.

Note that the commune leaves unresolved what to do about "problem individuals" in the larger sense. They just force them out. But if all of society was a commune, what then?

[Semiapies]

In the context of a larger liberal society, where they generally can't use coercion to enforce their rules, they have to make rules people will want to go along with. Change that, and you have every government in history we've seen try to run a collective economy. Not communes, but collective farms and dissenting kulaks getting shipped off to the hinterlands, or city residents being marched out to the farms.

(I'm aware than anarchists claim it's totally possible to democratically run a collective economy and have it work at least as well as a liberal capitalist society. The first has never happened, much less the second.)

The decoupling of the force of law from economic and social arrangements as much as possible is the libertarian argument, here. Having this sort of arrangement at the government level gives you oppression and starvation, while having it at the voluntary level gets you happy, self-selected communes where people brag about growing their own food.

(Having grown up in the country, the idea of growing and cooking one's own food and thus not having to pay retail is less mind-bogglingly amazing for me than it might be for other HN posters.)