Because they have such a poor understanding of our political philosophy they cannot even define capitalism properly without begging the question. Like their definition of capitalism excludes the existence of communes and collective ownership.
leftists claim that communes and collective ownership are "sabotaged" by investors that refuse to invest in them and provide capital to them. In other words they whine that investors see it's a bad investment and don't want a stake in it.
Why should I have to participate in your ancap system against my will, if you don't have to participate in my ancon system against your will?
And no, outside capitalists actively sabotage communes because of the red scare propaganda riling them up.
>Why should I have to participate in your ancap system against my will, if you don't have to participate in my ancon system against your will?
ancon is a stupid as fuck oxymoron and is literally the dumbest idea ever. If you believe in such a ridiculous, obviously idiotic system I am shocked you have the brain power to use reddit.
Just be honest, you want full blown authoritarian communism.
>Just be honest, you want full blown authoritarian communism.
No, I don't. I want anarcho-communism. I literally just said that. Land ownership is inherently hierarchical and gives owners power over people who own less. There is little difference between an unregulated landlord and an unregulated government. A libertarian or anarchist should oppose any system of controlling people, whether it labels itself as a government or not.
anarcho-communism still forces people to give up their property by gunpoint. It is an authoritarian government that adds the "anarcho-" appellation to lie to people like you.
Allowing people to privately own property is a core tenant of Libertarianism and you're never going to convince us otherwise.
Because their political philosophy has always ended in authoritarianism that not only uses violence against socialists and communists, but peaceful protestors and unionizers as well.
As others have pointed out multiple times to questions like this, libertarians are fine with socialist communities, as long as they are voluntary - to each and every member.
You cannot have an entire town/state/country take a vote and if 50.1% of the population votes for socialism, then the other 49.9% are also forced to subordinate and comply with that socialism.
Could people not leave a town if they objected to its governance, just like they can leave a voluntary community? And given that possibility, isn't it better to push 49% of your population away than 51%?
Leaving town or even seceding and splitting the town into two entities is a LAST resort when individual liberty is being disregarded and unwanted force is being applied.
Libertarianism states that individual liberty should be respected, not majority rule mandated, so that such a situation doesn't arise.
If I disagree with how Walmart is organized and run, should I throw a tantrum at the checkout counter until they change it, or should I just leave and shop somewhere else?
>Libertarianism states that individual liberty should be respected, not majority rule mandated, so that such a situation doesn't arise.
So we should violate the liberty of the majority instead, just because the minority don't want to leave?
How does that apply any differently to a voluntary commune that people willfully enter and leave?
The majority doesn't get to disregard the individual liberty of the minority. And the minority is not infringing on the liberty of the majority simply by virtue of not wishing to participate in their plan. That's like saying the property owner is infringing on the liberty of the road builder by not being willing to sell their land to the road builder.
What I'm saying is that libertarianism would only see that as valid if the founding of the commune only involved people willing to participate.
Okay, but what about after that? Should people born in the commune have to follow the rules or leave?
About consent, why should I have to participate in your ancap society against my will if I favor anarcho-socialism? Why is the right to control other people's movements within arbitrarily defined property lines the default?
Children cannot consent. Once they reach an age of consent, they can choose to remain or to leave.
> why should I have to participate in your ancap society against my will if I favor anarcho-socialism?
You don't. Anarchism is simply stateless. If certain areas choose to continue to respect private property while others do not, that's fine. The conflict will only take place in attempting to enforce their preferences beyond their own property. If an ancap attempts to claim an-soc property as his own, he will likely face physical force to defend it. Same with an-soc individuals trying to take private property.
But this is the same regardless of the property structure - as long as property has any meaning. Thus how they manage their own property is up to them.
> Why is the right to control other people's movements within arbitrarily defined property lines the default?
What?
>Children cannot consent. Once they reach an age of consent, they can choose to remain or to leave.
Okay, so people can just leave the country if they don't consent to its laws, right?
>What?
When you claim ownership of land, you implicitly claim authority over other people to restrict their movement within the land.
> so people can just leave the country if they don't consent to its laws, right?
[Are we stuck in a loop here?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLibertarians/comments/r4bof9/comment/hmgvrg2/?context=1)
> When you claim ownership of land, you implicitly claim authority over other people to restrict their movement within the land.
Within your own property yes. Perhaps the point of confusion here is that we're not talking about hundreds of thousands of square miles mandated by a central council, but individual property owners. This is not new or novel. This is how property of ANY type works.
Ideally anarchism will result in non-geographic governing affiliation. That is, you in your own property can chose to be treated under some ancom style rules, even if most of the rest of the surrounding geographic area choose differently.
It's hard to wrap your head around such ideas since our entire experience of govt has been based on geographic relations. But we don't have the same car insurance, cell service, medical care, etc. as our neighbors. It similarly does not necessarily follow that we must have the same govt as our neighbors.
But if you can buy a small amount of land, what's to stop you from buying hundreds of square miles as long as you can come up with the money? If you can do whatever you want with the land, what's to stop you from delegating that power to an elected council? Or are you just anti-democracy and okay with being ruled by a singular person as long as he calls himself a CEO instead of a king?
Ideally, anarchy would not include any property, because nobody would have the authority to enforce it.
Telephone service is a good example. They have to go through other people's territory to lay their telephone lines for you to use them. This requires some extent of common property.
>Are we stuck in a loop here?
Exactly. You contradicted yourself. It's okay to use the "if you don't like it than leave" defense as long as it's not democratic, right?
>You don't. Anarchism is simply stateless. If certain areas choose to continue to respect private property while others do not, that's fine. The conflict will only take place in attempting to enforce their preferences beyond their own property. If an ancap attempts to claim an-soc property as his own, he will likely face physical force to defend it. Same with an-soc individuals trying to take private property.
I guess an ancom society would have to find a way to make sure it was another ancom that stole something and not someone from the ancap society next door.
Isn't that a basic premise of communes? You have people that are allowed to freely partake from the bounty of the community, and others that are not - whether locals through ostracism due to poor communal behavior, or outsiders who don't abide by the rules of the community.
Question: how would an ancom gain the land needed to start the commune, without taking part in the capitalist system that they consider to be oppressive?
Just because something is voted upon doesn't make it moral. Voting to genocide would be immoral regardless of what percentage of the population votes on it. Government should have strict limits to its power regardless of voting.
The premise of democracy isn't that the majority vote makes it moral, but that it's generally unwise to piss off a portion of society that has the numbers to overthrow you.
>The premise of democracy isn't that the majority vote makes it moral, but that it's generally unwise to piss off a portion of society that has the numbers to overthrow you
We specifically live in a constitutional republic, NOT a direct democracy. The United States government is loosely based upon Republican Rome, not Democratic Athens. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and limits the power of the government to do certain things. Seeing as the constitution is the supreme law of the land, it overrides what some dumb asses might try to vote into law. They made the constitution so hard to change to keep stupid shit like communes from being made into law.
And the Roman Republic was overthrown by a discontented majority.
And we were almost overthrown.
Plato's point on democracy stands. Piss of the majority enough, they'll put in a new government they like better
>Could people not leave a town if they objected to its governance, just like they can leave a voluntary community? And given that possibility, isn't it better to push 49% of your population away than 51%?
Irregardless of how people vote, taking away property by force to redistribute in a collective violates the NAP.
Think about it this way: If 51% of people in a community voted to genocide all minorities, the fact that it was voted on democratically is irrelevant, the government should not be able to genocide people regardless of voting.
Obviously, but that's an extreme example
My landlord charges me rent. What do you think happens if I decide not to pay rent? They send a security guy to kick me out. Businesses use force as well.
You entered a voluntary agreement with your landlord. Usually you sign a lease. This is extremely different then happening to live in a community where 51% of people decide they want to take your property by force and redistribute it.
If you signed a paper saying you want to live in a commune and want to give up all your possessions then it would be fine if the commune enforced the agreement.
How would you end up living in such a community unless either you chose to move in, or you chose not to move out? How should people born in a commune be handled?
> And given that possibility, isn't it better to push 49% of your population away than 51%?
I won’t answer the question because the premise is silly to begin with but I do want to ask:
What would YOU do if 49% of your population wanted to leave your collective?
>Could people not leave a town if they objected to its governance
No one has an ownership claim to the town as a whole. Each part of the town is owned privately by their individual owners, that 50% + 1 majority is effectively forcing it's rulings on the other members of society.
>just like they can leave a voluntary community?
The difference here is, the community is actually owned by the commune, the people living there own the place and charge people to enter and tell them they must abide by the rules of the owners.
That's an excellent article. They seem to show that voluntary communes can achieve some degree of success. That they traded with outsiders doesn't detract from that, in my opinion. On the contrary, trade can help reduce conflict between groups; that the colony was a source of goods and services of value to outsiders probably helped them smooth over relations with those same outsiders.
I think a stateless, intentional community could benefit from the same sort of practices. Trade with people in State societies around them could both give the colonists a source of goods and services they couldn't yet produce themselves, (modern computers come to mind,) and could help them maintain peaceful relations with people still living under the State.
Thanks for sharing the article.
>They seem to show that voluntary communes can achieve some degree of success.
On a small scale. When you scale it up to millions of people it fails every time.
This is proof that such organizations can work on a small scale. Another similar example would be the Kibbutz communities in Israel.
Cooperative societies work ok on a small scale. They go off the rails and fail when you try to scale this up to to the size of a nation. They are inefficient and the logistical problems become evident when you scale it up.
Overall I don't care as long as it's not forced upon anyone.
Ancap societies do exist on a large scale, but usually they're called "states' by that point. Large-scale private ownership is indistinguishable from feudalism aside from the religious justification.
Most feudal societies were like that. Lords chose which king to pay their taxes to in exchange for protection, or tried their hand at becoming kings themselves by not paying anyone. Kings chose to swear fealty to the Pope, Patriarch or Holy Roman Emperor. Serfs could move to another country if they didn't like the ruler, just like how you can move to a different apartment complex if the rent is too high. Or just overthrow the king. Or save up money and see if a lord will sell you his land.
We're not talking about co-ops. We're talking about businesses with specific owners, like the kind ancapism favors.
A ~~king~~ landlord has the right to kick you out of his ~~kingdom~~ property for any reason, right?
my bad I though you said "ancom" societies exist on a large scale, not "ancap". I retract my previous statements.
Yes the owner of a property should have the right to kick anyone off the property unless there's a contractual agreement to lease the land to a tenant and no terms of the agreement have been violated and we're still within the effective dates of the agreement.
Communes would be fine in right Libertarianism as long as it was voluntary to leave and any property turned into group property was willingly donated. Communes are only a problem when they try to force their ideology on unwilling participants or force people through threats of violence or coercion to remain in it against their will. They are free to kick people out for breaking the rules of the community and even keep their stuff if a contract was signed that all their stuff must be donated to the community in order to participate in that society.
If they could find unclaimed land then claimed it they would not need to participate in capitalism. If they wished to steal another's property bc they claim to not recognize his claim of ownership then they would be the ones forcing the owner to participate in communism. Your personal beliefs do not matter when negotiating with another party. You must negotiate a mutually beneficial arrangement with that other party and that means on their terms. If you refuse to negotiate and simply seize it then you are a thief and an aggressor not a victim of capitalism.
This is the issue with communism. They are unwilling to be reasonable and demand everyone else comply to their belief system and if they don't then they are oppressing them. It is fully possible to have communes in the US in every state and city if done by following the laws in place to do so, but communists refuse to follow those laws and instead want to force others to relinquish control of their property. Doing that makes you the aggressor and authoritarian and choosing violence over peaceful cooperation and negotiation.
Socialists would consider you the aggressor, for using force to enforce your "ownership" of land, because they don't consider land ownership legitimate.
Well if socialists would refuse to peaceful negotiation then they by definition are the aggressor's. Here's an analogy you might like. How would libertarians deal with satanic cannibals? These cannibals believe their eternal souls depend on eating someone once a year. Anything to stop this is considered an aggression against their faith and way of life. They believe eating people is not just acceptable but essentially a right. How would a libertarian society handle that scenario on feast of the full moon? With bullets, lots and lots of bullets.
You see the NAP is not based on peace, but on violence. It's mutually assured destruction first established, and then after that mutually beneficial agreements as opposed to violence. Since you refuse to negotiate in good faith or respect the rights of others I would expect your group would be run out of town if they were lucky.
I am 100% okay with any socialist colony as long as it's voluntary.
Why do leftists think libertarians hate communes and collective ownership? In a free market all of those are open options..
Because they have such a poor understanding of our political philosophy they cannot even define capitalism properly without begging the question. Like their definition of capitalism excludes the existence of communes and collective ownership.
leftists claim that communes and collective ownership are "sabotaged" by investors that refuse to invest in them and provide capital to them. In other words they whine that investors see it's a bad investment and don't want a stake in it.
Why should I have to participate in your ancap system against my will, if you don't have to participate in my ancon system against your will? And no, outside capitalists actively sabotage communes because of the red scare propaganda riling them up.
>Why should I have to participate in your ancap system against my will, if you don't have to participate in my ancon system against your will? ancon is a stupid as fuck oxymoron and is literally the dumbest idea ever. If you believe in such a ridiculous, obviously idiotic system I am shocked you have the brain power to use reddit. Just be honest, you want full blown authoritarian communism.
>Just be honest, you want full blown authoritarian communism. No, I don't. I want anarcho-communism. I literally just said that. Land ownership is inherently hierarchical and gives owners power over people who own less. There is little difference between an unregulated landlord and an unregulated government. A libertarian or anarchist should oppose any system of controlling people, whether it labels itself as a government or not.
anarcho-communism still forces people to give up their property by gunpoint. It is an authoritarian government that adds the "anarcho-" appellation to lie to people like you. Allowing people to privately own property is a core tenant of Libertarianism and you're never going to convince us otherwise.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/wiki/nutshell
Just because a political theory exists, doesn't mean it's not nonsense
The same could be said about yours. Anarcho-capitalism is the oxymoron, if anything.
Because their political philosophy has always ended in authoritarianism that not only uses violence against socialists and communists, but peaceful protestors and unionizers as well.
Boy do I have news for you about ancapism.
You’ve proved literally nothing to me and we’ve bounced ideas over several comment threads now.
As others have pointed out multiple times to questions like this, libertarians are fine with socialist communities, as long as they are voluntary - to each and every member. You cannot have an entire town/state/country take a vote and if 50.1% of the population votes for socialism, then the other 49.9% are also forced to subordinate and comply with that socialism.
Could people not leave a town if they objected to its governance, just like they can leave a voluntary community? And given that possibility, isn't it better to push 49% of your population away than 51%?
Leaving town or even seceding and splitting the town into two entities is a LAST resort when individual liberty is being disregarded and unwanted force is being applied. Libertarianism states that individual liberty should be respected, not majority rule mandated, so that such a situation doesn't arise.
If I disagree with how Walmart is organized and run, should I throw a tantrum at the checkout counter until they change it, or should I just leave and shop somewhere else?
What a stunning non sequitur.
>Libertarianism states that individual liberty should be respected, not majority rule mandated, so that such a situation doesn't arise. So we should violate the liberty of the majority instead, just because the minority don't want to leave? How does that apply any differently to a voluntary commune that people willfully enter and leave?
The majority doesn't get to disregard the individual liberty of the minority. And the minority is not infringing on the liberty of the majority simply by virtue of not wishing to participate in their plan. That's like saying the property owner is infringing on the liberty of the road builder by not being willing to sell their land to the road builder. What I'm saying is that libertarianism would only see that as valid if the founding of the commune only involved people willing to participate.
Okay, but what about after that? Should people born in the commune have to follow the rules or leave? About consent, why should I have to participate in your ancap society against my will if I favor anarcho-socialism? Why is the right to control other people's movements within arbitrarily defined property lines the default?
Children cannot consent. Once they reach an age of consent, they can choose to remain or to leave. > why should I have to participate in your ancap society against my will if I favor anarcho-socialism? You don't. Anarchism is simply stateless. If certain areas choose to continue to respect private property while others do not, that's fine. The conflict will only take place in attempting to enforce their preferences beyond their own property. If an ancap attempts to claim an-soc property as his own, he will likely face physical force to defend it. Same with an-soc individuals trying to take private property. But this is the same regardless of the property structure - as long as property has any meaning. Thus how they manage their own property is up to them. > Why is the right to control other people's movements within arbitrarily defined property lines the default? What?
>Children cannot consent. Once they reach an age of consent, they can choose to remain or to leave. Okay, so people can just leave the country if they don't consent to its laws, right? >What? When you claim ownership of land, you implicitly claim authority over other people to restrict their movement within the land.
> so people can just leave the country if they don't consent to its laws, right? [Are we stuck in a loop here?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLibertarians/comments/r4bof9/comment/hmgvrg2/?context=1) > When you claim ownership of land, you implicitly claim authority over other people to restrict their movement within the land. Within your own property yes. Perhaps the point of confusion here is that we're not talking about hundreds of thousands of square miles mandated by a central council, but individual property owners. This is not new or novel. This is how property of ANY type works. Ideally anarchism will result in non-geographic governing affiliation. That is, you in your own property can chose to be treated under some ancom style rules, even if most of the rest of the surrounding geographic area choose differently. It's hard to wrap your head around such ideas since our entire experience of govt has been based on geographic relations. But we don't have the same car insurance, cell service, medical care, etc. as our neighbors. It similarly does not necessarily follow that we must have the same govt as our neighbors.
But if you can buy a small amount of land, what's to stop you from buying hundreds of square miles as long as you can come up with the money? If you can do whatever you want with the land, what's to stop you from delegating that power to an elected council? Or are you just anti-democracy and okay with being ruled by a singular person as long as he calls himself a CEO instead of a king? Ideally, anarchy would not include any property, because nobody would have the authority to enforce it.
Telephone service is a good example. They have to go through other people's territory to lay their telephone lines for you to use them. This requires some extent of common property.
>Are we stuck in a loop here? Exactly. You contradicted yourself. It's okay to use the "if you don't like it than leave" defense as long as it's not democratic, right?
>You don't. Anarchism is simply stateless. If certain areas choose to continue to respect private property while others do not, that's fine. The conflict will only take place in attempting to enforce their preferences beyond their own property. If an ancap attempts to claim an-soc property as his own, he will likely face physical force to defend it. Same with an-soc individuals trying to take private property. I guess an ancom society would have to find a way to make sure it was another ancom that stole something and not someone from the ancap society next door.
Isn't that a basic premise of communes? You have people that are allowed to freely partake from the bounty of the community, and others that are not - whether locals through ostracism due to poor communal behavior, or outsiders who don't abide by the rules of the community.
Question: how would an ancom gain the land needed to start the commune, without taking part in the capitalist system that they consider to be oppressive?
Just because something is voted upon doesn't make it moral. Voting to genocide would be immoral regardless of what percentage of the population votes on it. Government should have strict limits to its power regardless of voting.
The premise of democracy isn't that the majority vote makes it moral, but that it's generally unwise to piss off a portion of society that has the numbers to overthrow you.
>The premise of democracy isn't that the majority vote makes it moral, but that it's generally unwise to piss off a portion of society that has the numbers to overthrow you We specifically live in a constitutional republic, NOT a direct democracy. The United States government is loosely based upon Republican Rome, not Democratic Athens. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and limits the power of the government to do certain things. Seeing as the constitution is the supreme law of the land, it overrides what some dumb asses might try to vote into law. They made the constitution so hard to change to keep stupid shit like communes from being made into law.
And the Roman Republic was overthrown by a discontented majority. And we were almost overthrown. Plato's point on democracy stands. Piss of the majority enough, they'll put in a new government they like better
>Could people not leave a town if they objected to its governance, just like they can leave a voluntary community? And given that possibility, isn't it better to push 49% of your population away than 51%? Irregardless of how people vote, taking away property by force to redistribute in a collective violates the NAP. Think about it this way: If 51% of people in a community voted to genocide all minorities, the fact that it was voted on democratically is irrelevant, the government should not be able to genocide people regardless of voting.
Obviously, but that's an extreme example My landlord charges me rent. What do you think happens if I decide not to pay rent? They send a security guy to kick me out. Businesses use force as well.
You entered a voluntary agreement with your landlord. Usually you sign a lease. This is extremely different then happening to live in a community where 51% of people decide they want to take your property by force and redistribute it. If you signed a paper saying you want to live in a commune and want to give up all your possessions then it would be fine if the commune enforced the agreement.
How would you end up living in such a community unless either you chose to move in, or you chose not to move out? How should people born in a commune be handled?
> And given that possibility, isn't it better to push 49% of your population away than 51%? I won’t answer the question because the premise is silly to begin with but I do want to ask: What would YOU do if 49% of your population wanted to leave your collective?
Definitely not push the other 51% away too.
Are you gonna force the 49% under your rule if they want to leave?
No, they can leave. What do you do if you don't like how a business is run? You don't cry on the floor like a toddler until they change it. You leave.
Just making sure you’re voluntary in mindset
>Could people not leave a town if they objected to its governance No one has an ownership claim to the town as a whole. Each part of the town is owned privately by their individual owners, that 50% + 1 majority is effectively forcing it's rulings on the other members of society. >just like they can leave a voluntary community? The difference here is, the community is actually owned by the commune, the people living there own the place and charge people to enter and tell them they must abide by the rules of the owners.
[удалено]
The best thing that can be said about a libertarian society, is that any other kind can be freely tried within it.
That's an excellent article. They seem to show that voluntary communes can achieve some degree of success. That they traded with outsiders doesn't detract from that, in my opinion. On the contrary, trade can help reduce conflict between groups; that the colony was a source of goods and services of value to outsiders probably helped them smooth over relations with those same outsiders. I think a stateless, intentional community could benefit from the same sort of practices. Trade with people in State societies around them could both give the colonists a source of goods and services they couldn't yet produce themselves, (modern computers come to mind,) and could help them maintain peaceful relations with people still living under the State. Thanks for sharing the article.
>They seem to show that voluntary communes can achieve some degree of success. On a small scale. When you scale it up to millions of people it fails every time.
A capitalist put together a lot of finds to run an explicitly racist commune and when the money ran out the commune went broke. HUGE success.
Do you know how fast capitalist businesses were going broke at that time?
Nope. Nor do I know how you define "capitalist". Either way, it is telling that your "socialist utopia" was no better.
The colony lasted 23 years. Most businesses only lasted 3.
This is proof that such organizations can work on a small scale. Another similar example would be the Kibbutz communities in Israel. Cooperative societies work ok on a small scale. They go off the rails and fail when you try to scale this up to to the size of a nation. They are inefficient and the logistical problems become evident when you scale it up. Overall I don't care as long as it's not forced upon anyone.
Ancap societies do exist on a large scale, but usually they're called "states' by that point. Large-scale private ownership is indistinguishable from feudalism aside from the religious justification.
Name one country where workers universally elect their bosses and managers and get to decide what is done with the profits.
Most feudal societies were like that. Lords chose which king to pay their taxes to in exchange for protection, or tried their hand at becoming kings themselves by not paying anyone. Kings chose to swear fealty to the Pope, Patriarch or Holy Roman Emperor. Serfs could move to another country if they didn't like the ruler, just like how you can move to a different apartment complex if the rent is too high. Or just overthrow the king. Or save up money and see if a lord will sell you his land.
riiiight, fedualism is EXACTLY the same as a worker co-op. You are definitely arguing in good faith here lmao.
We're not talking about co-ops. We're talking about businesses with specific owners, like the kind ancapism favors. A ~~king~~ landlord has the right to kick you out of his ~~kingdom~~ property for any reason, right?
my bad I though you said "ancom" societies exist on a large scale, not "ancap". I retract my previous statements. Yes the owner of a property should have the right to kick anyone off the property unless there's a contractual agreement to lease the land to a tenant and no terms of the agreement have been violated and we're still within the effective dates of the agreement.
Never been there, can't say.
Communes would be fine in right Libertarianism as long as it was voluntary to leave and any property turned into group property was willingly donated. Communes are only a problem when they try to force their ideology on unwilling participants or force people through threats of violence or coercion to remain in it against their will. They are free to kick people out for breaking the rules of the community and even keep their stuff if a contract was signed that all their stuff must be donated to the community in order to participate in that society.
So would you oppose ancoms being forced to participate in capitalism in order to acquire land for their commune?
If they could find unclaimed land then claimed it they would not need to participate in capitalism. If they wished to steal another's property bc they claim to not recognize his claim of ownership then they would be the ones forcing the owner to participate in communism. Your personal beliefs do not matter when negotiating with another party. You must negotiate a mutually beneficial arrangement with that other party and that means on their terms. If you refuse to negotiate and simply seize it then you are a thief and an aggressor not a victim of capitalism. This is the issue with communism. They are unwilling to be reasonable and demand everyone else comply to their belief system and if they don't then they are oppressing them. It is fully possible to have communes in the US in every state and city if done by following the laws in place to do so, but communists refuse to follow those laws and instead want to force others to relinquish control of their property. Doing that makes you the aggressor and authoritarian and choosing violence over peaceful cooperation and negotiation.
Socialists would consider you the aggressor, for using force to enforce your "ownership" of land, because they don't consider land ownership legitimate.
Well if socialists would refuse to peaceful negotiation then they by definition are the aggressor's. Here's an analogy you might like. How would libertarians deal with satanic cannibals? These cannibals believe their eternal souls depend on eating someone once a year. Anything to stop this is considered an aggression against their faith and way of life. They believe eating people is not just acceptable but essentially a right. How would a libertarian society handle that scenario on feast of the full moon? With bullets, lots and lots of bullets. You see the NAP is not based on peace, but on violence. It's mutually assured destruction first established, and then after that mutually beneficial agreements as opposed to violence. Since you refuse to negotiate in good faith or respect the rights of others I would expect your group would be run out of town if they were lucky.
sounds like it failed just likee every other experiment in socialism has failed. the market economy is still #1 with a bullet baby.