The point is that the only reason there are poor people in the world is that there are extremely, like unimaginably rich poeple. Goods are impossible to hoard and when you do hoard them they devalue, unlike money, which you get more of the more you have. Apart from the simply aesthetic things, the only thing you can do with things (useful things that is) is use them. One person can only use a certain amount of things at one time. If people weren't slaves to money they would be able to do whatever work was required of them at any time. All they'd need to know would be where to go to best use the skills and equipment and stuff they have. We wouldn't have to barter, because no one would be poor, we could simply give and take and make and use.
Dude I just love that second pic on Moonwater's sig. Everytime I look at it I feel so overjoyed. True love at its truest...
societies exist without monetary systems to this day... yet on a global scale... thats another story... something much harder to do... but if u wanna live in a society with no monetary unit, you can.
No no, it's not. It would be healthy if it was. It ceased to be just a medium for exchange when they invented inflation. This means that when you have lots of money you get more and when you're in debt your debt gets bigger. It's not like anything else in that respect. It's not like something real.
If the world was without money this very instant, it would be an allout frenzy. People would steal and kill for things that they need. Eventually we would all have to learn to live together as one big community and it would all work out in the end.
Yeah, that's probably true. That's why there's space for overlap. People can just slow down their dependance on money and gradually move into working things out. I'm not proposing a backwards step here, it's about getting to know the people around you. Co-dependance (with people, rather than with imaginary units of... what is money supposed to represent? time? effort?) for greater individual independance. Freedom. Have I mentioned that food is not a commercially viable crop? Instead of paying farmers to produce food for everyone, the government decides to pay farmers (out of taxpayers money) to keep their lands free of crops. That way, we get to pay more for our food and what's left is commercially viable. Do a google search on farmer subsidies. If food were free, I think that would be a start... Oh fuckit, I'm stoned and tired and I'm going to bed, I can't be arsed arguing this right now. I'll get back to you.