Selling illegal drugs enables one to make huge profits not available to legal commerce.
I've always been in favor of the legalization of marijuana. I voted for it. But my point that taking advantage of the high profits from trafficking in illegal things is not a valid argument for the economic viability of communes.
For a commune to have standing as a viable way to live, it:
1. needs to be voluntary
2. needs to have its residents be there long term, i.e. 5 years or more
3. needs a legitimate source of income (not subsisting on crime)
4. needs to generate enough income to be self-sustaining (not relying on external income to make up the slack, such as donations, retirement pay or government welfare payments)
5. not rely on theft of resources, such as squatting on land not paid for
If you have evidence for communes that fit these criteria, I'd like to see it.
Christiania and countless other communes around the world do quite well, whether you choose to believe it or not. It is not up to you to define the end-all be-all definition of a commune.
> Clay observed that 20 percent of the membership turned over annually.[23]
I looked at your Twin Oaks example. They weed out slackers and drunks before they can join. Turnover is 20% per year. Evidently people like the concept of a commune much more than the reality.
At least it's a better example than your Christiana one (living on stolen land and illegal trade). It also validates my point that if you want to live in a commune in America, you are free to start one. They are not illegal. Nobody is going to try and stop you. There's no need for you to agitate for them - just do it. If it's really a better and workable way of living, they'd be commonplace.
> It is not up to you to define the end-all be-all definition of a commune
I didn't define a commune. I set out quite reasonable criteria that would characterize a successful commune.
I've always been in favor of the legalization of marijuana. I voted for it. But my point that taking advantage of the high profits from trafficking in illegal things is not a valid argument for the economic viability of communes.
For a commune to have standing as a viable way to live, it:
1. needs to be voluntary
2. needs to have its residents be there long term, i.e. 5 years or more
3. needs a legitimate source of income (not subsisting on crime)
4. needs to generate enough income to be self-sustaining (not relying on external income to make up the slack, such as donations, retirement pay or government welfare payments)
5. not rely on theft of resources, such as squatting on land not paid for
If you have evidence for communes that fit these criteria, I'd like to see it.