First feel free to laugh at my expense. Second, “make yourself” was not a perjorative term meant to exclude anything you yourself didn’t waft out of non-existence. I wasn’t trying to avoid the laws of physics for sure. Energy still would not be created or destroyed within the system, I promise.
My example of bringing tomatos to market was intended as part of the life we currently live in this economic system, and how it is possible for someone to make something themselves and take it to market themselves with no middleman. What I was saying there was that somewhere between that very real reality, that goes on every saturday around here, and the sad situation faced under the auspices of the Khmer Rouge there might be a place where the charm of hasn’t worn off, but people still have the mandate to sell only what they make. Would it work, I don’t know…that’s why its a discussion about how it might work. But the dispatching of what I was saying by taking a very unfounded simple concept of what I was saying and taking hold of it like your favorite chew toy because you want to quickly void my notions is just base, and comical.
Next, you affirmed that the society you think I postulated would only work for less than 6 billion people. This was supported by the lives of the Native Americans. All I have to say to this set of comments is that they are just so unscientific and irrelevant as phrased that it would take supreme court like restructuring to see where the intended merit contained therein might fit. I’m not on the supreme court but I’ll give it a go…
The most I could pull away from this part of your statements and still make them validly against my very bare bones concepts is that in the simplest of societies(Native Americans!!!!! ((which is offensive in itself and clearly the intention, beccause “even” definitely meant “primitive” in your context)) the members had a division of labor that was shared within the society. Which in itself is not a cohesive denigration of what little you were able to clearly disseminate from any part of my earlier postings. Since, the economic system I was describing is almost solely based on a stiff division of labor these comments more than not speak in favor of the approach I was suggesting. You would of course eat produce made by other people. Which is a direct analogy to “wore clothing worn by other people”. The fact that these statements analogize means your comments were not successful in showing the Native Americans would not even consider this society type in that the most primitive of peoples. (unbelievable)
Societal life spans came next. Those that struggled with providing being affirmed to fail quickly, destroy babies, and I think have bad healthcare=minimal medicinal benefits. Then I was shown that these societies are existing (the societies I was mentioning exist somewhere??? even though it was unthinkable?), and informed that I would certainly not have the intestinal fortitude to make them my home. What silly oaths. You did not at all come to a coherent concept that the society you conceive I’ve postulated creates a situation where its members live hand to mouth. Therefore, I won’t discuss the results you proscribe would be its attributes.
I suppose the last sentence assumes that the society I had been discussing is perceived to be a place I want to live, and it is an attempt to dissuade me from that by showing that the societies that were not successfully shown to be similar are in shambles. The fact is however that I mentioned from the beginning that I didn’t know whether or not this would work. Since no clear similarity was shown to a woeful civilization I can’t say whether I would want to live at the society I was trying to discuss constructively.