How so? I am not talking about a lack of division of labor. I am talking about a private community that is owned by each member of the community like a corportation. Rather than one person owning the whole thing, each member buys a share for each property, maybe 2 shares for larger plots of land or whatever. When rules are decided on for the community, rather than the decisions coming down from above from a single owner, they could come from the votes of the members. If residents do not like the community, they are free to leave just like they would leave a normal private community, heck even live in a community that is owned by a single owner if they choose. My point is, that I believe both forms can and do work. I don’t think we can argue in terms of efficiency, but in terms of what an individuals preferences are for what is better.
But profit and loss are subjective, not objective, so how can we say what is “efficient”? To me, there are not multiple forms of economic organization but one form. There is either, economy or no economy. How does my above description violate self ownership? It is just another way of living. Take for instance, I am LDS. A long time ago, Brigham Young tried to institute the United Order. Basically includes 10% tithes from members and members leaving everything they privately own to the church, which then decides how the property would be used. This is a completely voluntary system, that exists within the private ownership of the means of production. Property is voluntarily given to collective ownership. Those who do not want to participate are not forced to.
My church looks upon communism as satan trying to force god’s law on everyone to make everyone obey while god would never force his will on his creations.
Anyway, point is. Why is living this way bad? It is just different. Maybe objectively bad, but who are you to say?