The Use of Ideological Impracticality

I've been thinking about money recently. There are two main forms of people giving and getting recognition. One of those is money, and the other is emotion and talking. By this I mean that one form of exchange of ideas and value is that of currency, and another main form is that of talking.

When Ryan Faulk was debating that other guy in the 4-part series, Religious Communism, Ryan took the side of "the evil traders", and the other guy took the position that people would argue their case. Where it fell apart was what to do when, immediately, you might want to get some shoes: "Not through trade!"

The apex of these problems can be seen in trying to figure out how to apply a term that has been called both "anarchy" and "anti-statism", mainly because the connotation behind anarchy is that of chaos, which is not what is being recommended. Epitomized in the thought, "We HAVE anarchy," behind the thought of, "Well, if anarchy is people voluntarily organizing together and things just emerging as they will, didn't police, government, and the likewise, 'just emerge'?" This then seems to make the idea behind anarchy ("No more State!") pointless, since The State itself is emergent.

This is then, I think, the problem of 'preferring the worse solution because of ideology'; perhaps it could be called, "Ideological Impracticality". Likewise, this could be turned on its head -- ideally, as with the guy who was debating with Ryan, we would talk with each other and communicate our wants, and come together as a group. However - and this is where the ideological impracticality comes in - the solution of using money, using trade -- even the concept of trade -- is horrifying, because the other guy does not want to be under an overlord, doing the boring hourly-wage stuff, and generally not enjoying life. It's another case of, 'Well, they've both got a point, but...'

What the other guy is not against is trade. He's against being under some asshole who doesn't care about him, and he's against a boring job, and not enjoying himself. Since this is linked to trade, because how else would jobs come into the picture?, he doesn't like trade, and would rather get rid of it and just own stuff as per what he and others have done, and "present your case and you get your shit."

I think a solution might be some sort of money or meme system which starts out with currency and ends with a group hug, to paraphrase the idea. It's not a rejection of either side, but instead an inclusion of both, first using Trade as the means of connecting people and their interests, and then have it segue into a "group hug" type of thing. Obviously, this second part is what is lacking in the equation, and what I think would be an interesting topic for discussion.