andyh wrote:
Precisely my point andyh.

Reptired wrote:
So how are you going to take it off them? lol.
You can't expect market forces to stop people trading weapons, if anything trade would increase if free trade in weaponry was allowed which it would be in a free economy. You cannot have lawful behaviour without enforcement of it.
Even in a world without money at all there will still be crime, much reduced ofc but still present.

andyh wrote: A while ago you were worried about what bad people would once they couldn't run the state any more, now you think people trading weapons is bad? How would a free society prevent people freely trading, that goes off in your hands.

Please check your posts for contradictions, you're arguing with yourself.
andyh wrote: This sentence is complete madness.
andyh wrote: Have you been on the sauce, your posts are getting more and more incoherent.

On the contrary, yours are

You seem to expect the absence of government to all of a sudden make everyone nice.
You've not put forward any argument to show that this is feasible let alone possible.
You've also balked when confronted with slavery which was indeed part of an earlier free market economy when gov was not established in various countries in the past.

I'm not zany enough to suggest that a free market economy is restricted somehow by magic, you can leave that to ayn rand lol.

If you don't have slavery then you have someone stopping it from happening and that means police and that means government so make your mind up, do you want a real free market or not?

To be fair, perhaps it's me that's bin ont sauce but there are other options/possibilities

knobmeup wrote:
Yep, plenty.

Personally like, I want to see Fred Dibnah land ™ with us all nowt but steeplejacks

andyh wrote: No,I don't, you're not reading my posts.andyh wrote: "this" ? What do you mean by "this" ?
All I'm arguing at base is that violence is not a way to try to solve social problems, if that's not feasible or possible in your opinion then why are you having a conversation like this?andyh wrote: Where was this free market existed exactly?
The absence of government in the modern sense does not necessarily equate to a free society. You get that right? You could call it something else, the tribe, the holy roman empire.
Slavery can exist without the state but not in a free society.

*As an aside most of the instances of mass slavery commonly referred to in popular culture were not simply allowed by the state until it outlawed the practice but slavery was actually positively legislated for.*

This is a contradiction, you would learn more from looking at that sentence than you could from my response to it.

knobmeup wrote:
Many, I just don't allow that the violent one is acceptable.

Violence will always exist short of genetic manipulation of psychopaths.
Wishing them away will not make them disappear

andyh wrote: Most likely. I think it's a good idea to try to limit it by not making it the foundation of society.
Accidents will happen, that doesn't mean everyone should be required to fall down a flight of stairs backwards.
Amen.

Reptired wrote:
Careful thats what Fresco would say.

andyh wrote:
Really?

The whole point of removing money and profit motive was to reduce violence and crime generally because there would be no motive for it anymore. Why fight when there's plenty for all? Why get stressed about your job when you can go on holiday whenever you like and do whatever job you like and study whatever the hell and whenever the hell you like?

Sure as hell can't do any of that in a monetary system with total pwnership of everything by a tiny elite, so we fight each other for the crumbs.

Even religion couldn't be monopolized under such a system because again theres no monetary domination. I'd expect there to be still some religion but probably new ones and more diverse beliefs, a lot of baggage that comes with the mainstream ones today would be abandoned. Jesus would approve, the catholic church would not.

andyh wrote:
Lol, I'd expect there would still be some religion alright.

Reptired wrote:
Absolutely just as there would still be some violence albeit reduced.

Money is a religion in case you hadn't noticed.
As is laissez faire economics which expects market forces to solve everything without any rationality, just take it on faith.
Its such a strong religion even the other religions partake in it.

andyh wrote: The current monetary system is a religion. Money is not a religion.
andyh wrote: Strawman.
andyh wrote: Where exactly are religions free to practice laissez faire?

Reptired wrote: Hidden hand, belief in value, total disregard for limited resources, religious texts, lol, ticks a lot of boxes.

andyh wrote:
It would be a strawman to use a comparison with a totally unconnected thing to compare with the original argument.
As we were talking about economics and no logical basis behind it whatsoever in relation to the real world and the laws of physics then the straw is on the other camels foot so to speak, lol

andyh wrote:
Mentions strawman above then compares religions partaking in specifically laissez faire to religions partaking in the monetary system.