[No.6]

"I presume that in the case of this commune this is made clear to prospective members."

Oh no ... read their FAQ and such. It's all about the sharing and the caring.

If someone got uppity and actually tracked down the paperwork and asked one of the 7 why they owned everything, first they'd be harangued by the fellow-travellers, then if they persisted the 7 might explain that the big bad outside world required it, then if they still persisted they'd be thrown out.

[posterchild]

I do however not want to presume too much about this particular group, especially since all I know is from their webpage. Though such an organization is very ripe for corrupt leadership, there is no evidence from the publicly available information that this particular group has succumbed.
The sharing and caring could in theory pertain merely to social activities and to *income* derived from businesses in this 'theme park.' If a friend and I routinely went fishing on a third friend's lake, and we agreed to share our fish equally among all three people, I wouldn't presume I had acquired ownership of the lake, nor would it naturally follow that I could be talked into surrendering my fishing rod to the lake owner.
Viewed from afar it doesn't come across as a cult with an unquestionable leader, and it does say in its FAQ that:
Members keep all assets they come with (they are frozen during membership), but all income from our community businesses goes to the collective; no one earns individual "wages" or a "salary".
(I am though suspicious as to why assets must be 'frozen' rather than kept merely kept in a normal individual account at a bank or brokerage house.)

Disclaimer: I am neither a member, prospective member, nor spokesperson of Twin Oaks:)