Let's make this simpler: If money disappeared, a lot of people would die. I don't care how long you make the transition period; even if it's a change spread across 20 years, without a database of resources and how many belong to each person (which is what money is), you aren't going to be able to coordinate people well enough to feed billions of people each day. How would the deletion of the database serve anyone?
You claim that "making the world better and making money are inherently in conflict." My understanding of this sentence is that one cannot make money while making the world better. It follows then that it is bad to be making money, since it makes the world worse. If it is bad to be making money, it would be better to not be doing so. If money is not being made, this is the same as money being eliminated, as it ceases to serve its purpose.
Things can be in conflict without being in combat. Acknowledging that one thing conflicts with another doesn’t mean one must extinguish the other. My whole point was to identify how the two could be reconciled for the purpose of the endeavor, even while still being in conflict. Please tell me where you still don’t understand why I’m not arguing with a strawman argument you keep trying to assign to me.
> Acknowledging that one thing conflicts with another doesn’t mean one must extinguish the other.
Conflict does imply one thing stands opposed to another. I would not agree that making money inherently makes the world a worse place. Rather, the existence of money facilitates trade and makes the world better because it allows us to specialize in our respective trades. If I'm a farmer who raises chickens, money makes it so I don't have to trade for things with chickens.
From where I stand, there isn't a conflict between making money and making the world better. Money is a proxy for what people think makes their world better. And, since what people think is entirely subjective, there may be conflicting ideas about what makes the world better. If I want the city to spend $100k on shareable bicycles and you want it to spend $100k to build a recycling center, who is right? Money does not introduce conflict. Different ideas might.
That is a bizarre distinction, one I’ve never heard of and certainly can’t find any information about “logical combat.” I’d be interested to know where you learned of this dichotomy.
If this semantic issue is the source of the disagreement, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
My goodness there is a wealth of literature specifically available from the link I posted. Counterposing ideas is a basic tenet or philosophy. The tension between them is a fundamental underpinning of the complexity of living in society. It’s a whole world of ideas to explore if you want to. Grab a book if you’re curious.
