That is much more freeing than needing a state or dictatorship of the proletariat to redistribute anything.

aha, and who would be producing your at least minimal needs for survival then?

in what sense, exactly?

food, shelter, water?

People would do it themselves without the need of capital, money, or the state.

but why would they?

wait, you mean you as an individual, would do it for yourself?

Because people don't want to be naked, cold or dehydrated lol

People would do it collectively.

Parents would still care for their children, and entirely new social organization would sprout up.

Like I said, its radical.

Imagine it more like this: People leave the society that is failing, and they go to make another one. They care for each other not for profit, but because they don't want to suffer.

They would farm, build shelter, and have water.

Using the knowledge that they have already previously learned from the society that they left.

Or perhaps, people in massive drives, by the billions, simply lose faith in the crumbling institutions and bring forth better ones.

you realize that's like going back to the neanderthal level of society, do you?

How so?

There is no reason to suggest that just because people decide to quit their 9-5s by the billions that they would somehow forget how to build or create new inventions lol

because traits that are needed nowadays to provide for the amount of people that live on the face of the earth, require technology, and a sophisticated one at it. what you imagine is that every people would be able to learn these traits, and exercise them for their survival. while this might be true for clarifying water and hunting, it might not be true for chemical engineering and industrial farming (much less mechanical engineering), that the industrial revolution brought

also, you would impose value on people that have rare traits others don't to trade their traits for the value they don't want to. they will simply go to other 'communities', and sell their traits there for the value they see fit

The computer programmer would take the computer that he already bought in the previous system, and create new data structures to use that don't rely upon IP rights or having to program as the sole driver of their ability to sell their labor.

No one would be imposing anything on anyone lol

People that are frustrated with the way things are in this society would "leave". These "Leavers" would come from all aspects of life. Computer Programmer, engineers, farmers etc.

You can find many people from those groups which could come together and produce a new means of social relations.

The people that would make up these communities would be disgusted by the idea of needing to sell anyone's labor power for survival.

okay, so let me pose an example: I as a mechanical engineer, would have to provide your community, because your community says so. another community would not need me to provide that amount of work for them, to get more food/shelter/whatever. I go there, you will only get mechanical engineers on a lower level to provide for your community, ending up on a lower quality of engines and stability on the long run. and the you would say I guess, that's not fair

1) Its not simply because the community says so, it would be because he would want to.

If he didn't want to then he could go somewhere else where he would want a profit for selling his labor power.

oh, then let me pose a more radical example:
Scenario 1: vicious people come to your community and slaughter the men/rape the women. since you hate the idea of violence
Scenario 2: certain people of your community will say, they will fight for your community, for being treated better and having to work less for their survival

Meh. Every community has that problem. In my opinion, if that is your criterion for as to why my theory won't work, then you should be consistent and apply it to capitalism as well. People get raped all of the time in capitalism, hell police officers do that to people and can get away with it in some instances lol. If your problem is "oh, but your little shitty hippie society won't have guns and will be raped by people that do" well guess what? If it is the case that we shouldn't have some societies over other because of that problem, yet no society has ever not had rapists, then we should just get rid of society entirely via a human extinction plague akin to the Krogan genophage from Mass Effect.

High Roller. Either we make the best damn society free of problems, or we shouldn't have one at all. Simple.

And keep in mind, brutal violence doesn't have to be the only problem, it could be any problem really.

wow man, you failed to provide any arguments again. we're not talking about the current society now, you deflected my points totally. we were on the theoretical level, where I was trying to get the argument on why that happy-go-lucky society of your would be able to survive without people wanting to trade

I find that the distinction between theory and praxis is blurred.

I never said this society in which we're living in is perfect, all I'm saying is, economically the free market is the least shitty solution. times may come where it can/will be improved, but right now it's what we have to go with.

In my example, its not a strict abstraction. It would still have to deal with the transition from capitalism to a post-capitalist system all the while the people are still in transition.

also, minarchism is the way to go, nudge-nudge

No lol

People can do much better than a shitty free market lol

wow, and now you're talking about transitioning. you still didn't answer the primary question: why would people not want to trade in your imagined society?

Trade what, exactly?