Suppose communal living, or something of that nature, becomes popular and is determined to be better than capitalism in a society of free association. Would you mind this? I'm just wondering if acceptance of another system, if it is proven to be better in the free market and in the realm of free association, is an opinion that the others here and in the world share.

It would be consistent with my political system, but inconsistent with my value system. I don't like communal living, just like I don't like drug use or diversity. There are many immoral, undesirable things people can do that are still legal under libertarianism, I'll oppose them all.

I'm curious, what about diversity don't you like?

I value those more genetically similar to me and my cultural traditions in general. There's also the fact diversity increases social tension and conflict.

It's a spectrum, almost everyone prefers homogeneity over diversity at least a little. This is explained by evolution, it makes sense that people would care more when their community is more genetically similar. The empirical evidence backs this up, areas with greater racial diversity exhibit lower social trust, between and within races. Race riots in prisons and schools, the disproportionate Black on White crime, the fact most genocidal/tribal conflicts occurs within the same border, and the balkanization of groups under our democratic system of government suggests diversity is not desirable.

so you dont mind the conflict that occurs when humans interact with other species of animals. you like that kind of diversity, because your side always wins.

Animals are insignificant compared to humans, I don't attribute any moral worth to them. Humans share my genes and general behavior, as well as the fact we are a breeding population. I value the existence of some higher mammals, like Apes and Canines, but they have no place in my ethical system. I care about the lives of other humans, while I don't care if animals suffer at our hands.