@beardmusic removed their quoted postThis is philosophical, it is ok, the nature of things. You could pepper it up with some natural law. And so forth.
But a practical response would be more in keeping with Mott’s point. In today’s society, I do not know of any way that someone would go from day-to-day without expenditure of money. There may be the rare couple that lives on a farm that they pay for with money, and lives off the land And make their own clothes, etc.
Other than those people, who are you suggesting that would live without money and how would they do so?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidI understand that yourself is the only person you respect.
just another fool liberal that doesnt understand self respect
(Not including your savior, the Orange Jesus.)
1 edit
@beardmusic saidNo, just something else will be used as money for the vast majority of things. In a true long lasting collapse there will be chaos, theft and murder for needs until balance comes from new forms of currency and grouping of people for safety. Most people have lost the ability/knowledge to be able to take care of themselves growing food, shelter and on and on, especially in cities.
@AverageJoe1
Fair enough. I was merely pointing out that money itself doesn't provide the means of life - it certainly can do (as in the society we live in) but it is a fundamental mistake to equate these circumstances with a broader human reality.
An economic collapse (for instance a dollar collapse) can (and will) reveal the fundamental mistake in his thinking.
@beardmusic removed their quoted postI don’t think so, at least not without a little salt. You can trade protection, food, or medicine, weapons, bullets, work, knowledge and many other things that continues life and works as a substitute in the same manner. Precious metals in large or small amounts can’t be eaten either but used in short term situations.