but besiiiides that, money tends to dominate the monopoly of violence in human history

because the state uses violence to parasite off of those who produce

that problem is not production or the free exchange of goods between people, it's the state using violence to extort them to promote its own agenda

But without the state there can be no means of production

If this is "conquerors are often rich", that goes without saying. If this is "mercenaries are good" I'm gonna have to point toward Machiavelli and Italy

of course there can be means of production

There wouldn't be a state without means of production.

of course there would

You can have production without a state, but not the reverse

better your economy = better education, compounds your ability to extract resources as that feeds back into your economy, compounds technological progress as that feeds back into your economy, population expasion, specialization of labor. these factors allow you if you so choose to funnel themselves into military power except maybe extraction of resources but thats basicly what money is based on.

if you're alone in an island, and you manage to create tools to produce, you're creating the means of produciton

no state

Right, and you wouldn't have a state until multiple people are there, and you can provide for all of them sufficiently

your body is a means of production

You wouldn't have a state until a group of people band together to extort the others under the threat of violence

What if the state operates on general consensus for the purpose of rulemaking?

The state is parasitical by definition, it doesn't produce anything

I never said it did, that was the other guy

Okay there be no market without the state. There can be production

It doesn't matter, it's still based on the threat of violence, unless there are no consequences for those who go against the general consensus

F.Pazuzu are you communist?

There can be a market as well

Of course there can be market without the state

Trade can exist outside of the confines of state intervention

No, @DarKinGate , quite the opposite'

seems more like an anarchist than a communist

But wouldnt those trading in markets be states within themselves?

I'm an anarchist

what ist someone is doesent matter

No, because there is no threat of aggression if the trade is being doing voluntarily

amen, @Arch-Fiend

How is one person a state?

trade, market, capitalism, whatever you want to call it, it's the free and voluntary exchange of goods between consenting parts

No one is the state lmao

unless you're louis xiv

Right, @My Preferred Pronoun Is Sama implied that those trading within markets are states

But individuals can trade in markets and individuals are not states

So I'm not sure where that assertion comes from

the market is simply the name given to the whole of those free and voluntary exchange of goods

Its cause trade requires more than one person. There can be production with no market.

Right, so two individuals can trade