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

yes, there can be production with no market, as in the island example

the problem with pazuzu is he doesent understand human nature. its not a matter that the state parasitizes off people production of labor, its that a person who produces the most in any group often has the advantage in controling other people because he has more than anyone else and the ability to influince them with what he has, this quickly spirils into him no longer producing anything while having other people produce for him and pitting them against eachother in order to maintain his position. over a long time this population which is cooperating weather they like it or not will produce ofspring that are either better at creating technology that everyone can use to produce more, or create people who are better at manipulating the producers in the community to maintain their authority or gain authority which does ultimately serve the community against outside threats

Ok i give you my thoughts that nobody really cares, also sorry for bad english.
I think that Government is important but should be less powerfull, there are rules people withing the country should follow: no kill, no rob ect. if you break them you get to be punished by the law enforcement, government should take money off the people who lives and uses its services, but it should be as small percentage as possible. if you are going to kill somebody you have to face concequences. this is the most free thing i can imagine for now

why is the state above the laws it proposes? why is it wrong for person a to rob person b, but not for the state to rob person a and b?

"A state is a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain geographical territory.[1][2]" this is, I think, a fairly clear and neutral definition to work off of for "state"

Just so we're not running into definitional issues

What you mean by Rob?

Welp. The state is a product of the market

Thats one thing answered

Only insofar as people see others accumulating wealth and want to parasite off of them without producing anything themselves, and they do so under the threat of violence

How is that the product of financial transaction?

Not financial transaction but financial institutions

Which is a product of transactions

the individual always falls to the well focused collective

Financial institutions such as?

@Arch-Fiend how do i not understand human nature? the person who produces enough to hire people to voluntarily produce for them ins't leeching off of anyone, or taking advantage, unless you're an actual marxist and believes in the theory of value, which has been thoroughly debunked

What is a financial institution?

If you're talking about banks those exist because of the state

but pazuzu every government in history was formed that way

Source?

human history

Banks exist because of people

Source? @Arch-Fiend