:However I can see cliques producing happily for eachothers needs and ignoring the starving whilst there being no measn to adress them.The point is, that they wouldn't be able to, because:
1:They are part of a widespread network, which might start getting shirty with them and end their capacity to thusly produce.
2:The disease spreads, and the whole system falls apart, so that such groups lose any potential advantage from such behaviour...
the conditions of failure are the reasons for success.
: If all is voluntary then so the 'bad' things can happen as readily as the 'good' (though in my view far less frequently).
Voluntary is relative to ensuring the conditions where there is no incentive, or actual possibility for such behaviopur to successfully function.
: Should, oughto. Might just not bother though.... Even if the revolutionary generation go for it the next may not.
But thats where culture comes in, it'll just seem like nature for people to work in that way to later generations, and all this money business will seem like a form of insanity to them. the economic structure/conditions would be an incentive to such behaviour.
You would think it barbarous to leave a person thirsting in the desert, if you had plenty to spare them. It may well be an offense by ommission rather than comission, but you'd still see the clear-cutness of it. Later generations would likewise see not fending for the community in a like way.
:You can see why you have been called idealistic can't you? I like the scenario you paint, but I don't see it as remotely possible.
Thats because at heart you're a hard-core individualist, and cannot envisage cultural/enviornmental determinism.
None.
