In a small group setting like that it would be foolish not to set-up pure communism. As factionalism develops then pure communism fails. I think Marvin Harris' sequence from there foreward is reasonable.

In pure trading or pure hunter-gatherer cultures power dissipates more quickly than in mixed agrarian cultures. When the society becomes agrarian people get tied to the land. Somebody has to organize labor and distribute produce equitably. Wheras in hunter-gatherer, the hunting units can get no larger than the carrying capacity of the prey and forage items. Once the local resources are depleted its time to move on. Bands stay small, no hereditary centralized authority but a headman or woman position may be created as needed. But everybody knows everybody and kinship bonds facilitate sharing limited resources.

In pure trading cultures folks are on the move and live in small bands but reurn to large settlements for spouses and renewal of kinship ties and so forth. But again, the population is transient and thus can't support a nobility class. Perhaps this is true-blue libertarianism.

I can't figure-out when or how a perfect libertarian society would naturally arise without commerce being the source of all life-sustaining items. Absent extraordinary geographical circumstances, I don't think pure libertarian society would persist. It would be over-run in pretty short order by monarchical, expansionist societies.

You and Kerry have intrigued me with this. I guess I'll go take another look at "Manifesto". Its been over 30 years.

B