Military, Militia, whatever the word it is, any society need a force to defend against external threats. I’m not sure how co-ordiantion would work while not being authoritarian and thus inadvetently create a state.
Military, Militia, whatever the word it is, any society need a force to defend against external threats. I’m not sure how co-ordiantion would work while not being authoritarian and thus inadvetently create a state.
Though I think it’d also be interesting to talk about power, I’m talking about the economy, and unless discussing something that much broader interests you enough to discard talking about the economy and the military for you as well I think we should focus on what we were talking about instead of veering down further tangents.
You asked what would it look like, and I gave you a realistic answer. There’s no way that type of economy could exist in the real world, it’s never been done, and there’s plenty of evidence showing it failing even in small groups of people.
I asked you what you think they’d look like, and you’ve only repeated that “they don’t work have never worked and will never work” without answering my question.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/20463826 https://www.medievalists.net/2014/12/gift-giving-middle-ages-new-exhibition-getty/
Your argument is like an 18th-century commentator saying federalism would never work to the scale of the thirteen colonies—it underestimates what has advanced. Whereas the federalism-skeptics underestimated advances in checks and balances (whose problem today is IMO with one branch just abnegating its power) from enlightenment thought and the consolidated power of the legislature developed through British Parliament, you underestimate modern social connection and networking. Sure, there are deep divisions, but within those separated groups are bonds, the strength of which on such a large scale never before seen.