@spyman: It wouldn't. But since when do people trade potatoes for cars in our system?

@Draug: "the farmer and the butcher and the baker and any other profession that manufactures perishables would find their goods to have less value than those who made durable goods" That would be true if it weren't for the fact that perishables are generally food, and people need food to live, and so their value would become very high.

I would trade potatoes for a Ferrari any day.

@Draug: Ah, but I see you're talking about using them a mediums of exchange. Even so, I don't see how the fact that durable things could be used as mediums of exchange in my system would lead to currency. Care to elaborate?

@Draug: And also, there still wouldn't be many times where things were used as a medium of exchange. More often and not, people would trade something they had made for something they wanted. This is one reason why I don't think currency would develop.

So, if my potatoes were food, and I wanted a car, and the person with the car wanted French Fries for dinner, you really think they would trade :)

@Killer: No. I was assuming it was a used car, and a lot of potatoes. (and probably other stuff too)

And maybe my soul too.

You'd sell your soul for a used car? =(

no

Conservative man, I hope http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=35369
starts, so I can finally play you!

That's just a barter currency

Barter is nice in some situations... in my experience mostly among family (where relations are friendly and you know that over multiple transactions that it all comes out in the wash, as they say - i.e. your not even expecting repayment anytime soon - but you never the less know you'll get it).

I have significant concerns about the capitalist system - but I think outlawing money would favor the rich and make things even worse for most of the rest of us... the rich would have the most ability to hold onto things until they found the right "price" (item in exchange) whereas the average person would need to put food on the table that week and would not have a backlog of resources so would be very motivated to trade sooner rather than later. What happens when one party is very motivated to trade and the other party isn't in a hurry or in great need?? Well, of course, as we know from markets, a motivated seller creates a buyer's market and a motivated buyer creates a seller's market... in this case, it would be a rich person's market most of the time. Not that it isn't already - but at least with money it is easy for me to go to anyone who has what I need - whether or not they are in a position to hold my goods that I'm offering in trade for some extended period of time until they can trade it again... i.e. whether or not they are a really rich guy with tons of resources.

Add rural locations and very long distances with few people and the problem becomes much much worse.

Look, Conservative Man, its not the money that's the evil... its the love of money (I'm on solid religious/philosophical ground here). Money is a tool - and it is a finely honed tool. It is the best thing going for making markets work for everyone - and is of particular importance for the common man. Are there abuses? Sure - but they would be harder to measure and thus harder to detect, prove, and prosecute if there wasn't a common currency. ...and if you need proof that money isn't the problem regarding people getting exploited, watch a nature show and see how it is the alpha male animals that eat first, that steal from the weak and sick, mate with multiple partners (including by rape) and generally get to live the life of a successful criminal. Did they need money to do that? No.

You can barter anytime you want and you can use any medium of exchange that you want... right now. No waiting - go for it. The reason that this is rare and use of currency is common is because currency works a ton better for those who use it. It has a huge competitive advantage. It gives the users more freedom and more flexibility... being that barter is quite definitely legal, the only reason why barter is not used more is that it doesn't work as well on average. Not nearly as well. Simple.

Okay, that makes sense, but the problem is, I want anarchy, and this is the only anarchist economic system that would work (except mayber mutualism, so I'd consider that too). And the decrease in the freedom and flexibility of exchange is made up for by the elimination of government and capitalism. So I'd still like to try this out. But maybe Mutualism would be better. It's basically the same, except it has currency.

There are a few websites which facilitate bartering. Like this one:
http://www.u-exchange.com/barter-online

Any way: I have a new subject to debate over and it will start with this article I wrote for Conservative Man Weekly: Parenting and Anarchy
One of the main criticisms of anarchy is that once there is no government, people will start stealing and murdering. I don't believe this is true, but if it turns out to be true, I feel that there is a simple solution. And it has to do with parenting.
Kids are very impressionable, especially when they're parents are involved. When I was little, my mom said she didn't think God wanted us to mix the races and have interracial marriage. I took that to heart then, and even though I don't believe it now, I am to this day generally unattracted to black women. So parents have great power of how their kids will think in the future.
When parents tell their kids to not do something or they will be punished, it gets put into their heads that the ONLY reason they shouldn't do bad things is because they will be punished. And that is the reason why possibly, in anarchy, regular people will do immoral things. There is no obvious threat of punishment, and their upbringing has led them to believe that that is the only reason why some things are wrong. So obviously parenting needs to be changed, for the good of society, as well as to make anarchy more likely.
This is the way parents shouls parent their children: Don't punish your child for wrongdoing, but instead explain to your child beforehand why certain things are wrong, and then lead by example. Keep reminding them that certain things are wrong. I think it might be good to make them feel guilty if they do do something wrong. They don't know it's punishment, but it will sure make them think twice about doing wrong. Once this child is grown-up, he or she with have a more accurate gauge of right and wrong, and should be moral with or without a government.
So this is my guide on parenting, and how correct parenting can make anarchy more successful. What do you think?

Do you have kids? If so, I'm sorry for them. :D

@killer: I'm in high school. And are you completely joking or seriously joking?

Completely joking with you, Con man.

Good. Now what do you seriously think of the article?

Can't read it all right now, will post on it later.

Bump

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=35381
Talk is cheap.

I can't killer. I've got to go to bed soon.

I'm going to bed now.

"Kids are very impressionable, especially when they're parents are involved. When I was little, my mom said she didn't think God wanted us to mix the races and have interracial marriage. I took that to heart then, and even though I don't believe it now, I am to this day generally unattracted to black women. So parents have great power of how their kids will think in the future."

Actually, there is a very simple biological explanation: koinophilia. I'm guessing you live in a predominantly white area, which means that the tendency to find the average appearance attractive implies that you wouldn't find the minority in your area attractive.

The problem is not every *makes* stuff. Plumber needs dinner. Electrician needs plumber. How does the electrician pay the plumber with something he needs if the plumber doesn't need electrical work. There will be a form of currency over time. It is unavoidable. The currency may be in commodities and goods such as oil or sheep or cows or electronics or whatever, but it will develop in time because the grocer isn't going to constantly need an electrician and a plumber but they will constantly need his food.

Somewhere ConMan read a book or something and latched onto anarchy as the solution to all problems. He hasn't thought through what it means. He throws the only economic system compatible out there and stands behind it without thinking through the problems with it. I am guessing that if he studied a bit, he would switch to something else.

I have heard people move for the elimination of countries, but they understood that something would fill the void. They wanted a sort of pseudo government not locked to land, which you would sign up with to get goods and services and pay taxes to. I can see some value in that, but I also find it incredibly scary.