There's been some lively discussion recently about 'public goods' and the like, (on parasitic pricing, 'public goods', sound advice?) and as a concession to my critics I thought I'd point out a perceived circularity within the current literature.
'Libertarians' are very keen to express via concrete examples, the fact that private companies do indeed provide public goods. The literature is so vast, it has effectively proven that we do not 'need' governments to provide 'public goods', and fits with the claim I made (based on the workds of Aaron Wildavsky) that the concept of public goods must be replaced by 'publc goods'.
David Levy wrote an excellent piece on Disney World, used in the work of Fred Foldvary showing how typical 'public goods' such as litter collection, transportation systems, waste disposal etc are provided to a very high standard at Disney World. It even goes on to highlight how Disney World's desire for solilitude means they'd rather be surrounded by nature reserves than sell the land to ugly developers.
The conclusion, is that we don't need governments since the market can provide.
My conclusion, is that small communities organised without a price mechanism, with standard treatment for all is potentially both viable and efficient.
The key distinction, however, is choice. With increasing mobility, and freedom to exit (the crucial concept not evident in Cuba), such communities are possible.
Disney World, the communist utopia survives by charging an entrance fee, and 'bundleing' goods and services onces you're inside the resort.
This too is analogous to communism, where the price you pay for entry is your soul.......