DO YOU MEAN LIKE A COMMUNE? Where people work with out pay and share the resourses equally and provide service with out cost to receive services from others free...it will never work... there will always be those who feel as thay are doing more than others ,then there is those who will figure out how to take with out giving, Also, once GREED sets in, of course, as in all societies, and the I'M BETTER THAN HE IS thought starts then everything fails.

could we steal things from neighboring countries ?? or get Foriegn government aid from the United States and not repay LOL ;)

No! Try getting anything for "free". Somebody has to pick up the tab. Who will provide your services, goods, etc.? Thru labor or resources these must be paid for. Also, not all members will be as valuable to the community as others. Will the Doctor enjoy the same lifestyle as the grocery clerk? Money is how we "recognize" the contribution an individual makes.

While it's possible, I wouldn't necessarily know the feasibility of that because you would have to overcome some pretty big hurdles. How would everything be free to everyone? Would everything be bought for them by some infinitely wealthy leader or outside benefactor? Or would all of the residents comprise an entire, multi structured industry/services workforce? And if so, how would the needs the residents have from the very beginning of this civilization be met until the various industries had been able to manufacture enough goods to go around? Also, how would such occupations be compensated? Would they work communally for the benefit of all? How would innovation be driven without competition? Or, for that matter, how would individuals better themselves without this competition? The questions could go on and on. There have been many attempts to create a utpoian society and even more novels written on the subject. All pretty much end up the same way: stagnation. Humans are instinctively driven to acquire things they need, not to just be handed them. Without the "push" of competition and wants for advancement in life, and all the benefits that come with that, people loose the desire for invention, innovation and another wonderful thing that advancement and better position in life can lead to: altruism and philanthropy. Not everyone has the same set of tools to live their lives with, so with a striated society, all needs, desires and dreams can be better addressed. So while it's a beautiful and wonderful concept, I don't think such environments are really feasible or even possible to maintain, and longevity of a society is just as important to a civilization as making sure that all residents' needs are met.

How do you stop people taking more than their "fair share". What is their "fair share"? Should the people who work hard have more food, or the people with bigger bodies who need more food, or the clever people who don't work hard but save everybody else trouble? If you do extra, like entertaining in the evening after work is over, should you get more? How much more? Should you get rewarded for trying (she sings, but sounds awful) or not trying (he is so naturally witty he has everyone laughing). This has been tried many times, here and there. And it only works up to the size of an extended family - thirty or forty people, all of whom know each other well, and where everybody sees everything that is going on. As soon as the groups gets large enough that people don't see the results of each other's work, or cannot work out how many resources there actually are, people think they are getting short changed. And then you have to have something like money. Call it work points, community contributions, beans, tokens, cowries.... They are all money under another name.

Umm hasn't anyone heard of...I don't know..umm.. indigenous people? Like natives? And not just America but almost every continent. lol I mean granted some trading is involved between other tribes, but aside from that single tribes are pretty much self sustaining. They don't have to buy from within the tribe, and everyone just does their part. They seemed to get along rather well without a never ending desire for innovation or invention. The problem is because of the way our society was formed it prevents us from setting aside ourselves to help the whole. It's not so much that we want to better ourselves but more that we want to be better than someone else. Otherwise plenty of people would be fine with middle class am I right? But no one wants to just survive anymore. They want some type of greatness. But what they forget is that just surviving is greatness in itself. Look at all the things that die before the end of its life span, to include the things we eat. Anyway it is possible but we'd have to put aside our ego's. Who cares if your life isn't better than those who came before you? If those that came before you lived perfect lives then it wouldn't matter now would it? And who cares who's a doctor and who's a farmer? Doctors need to eat and farmers get sick. Seems like they are both pretty essential parts of society to me. But then here comes that ego. Want to know what type of people in the world that could never live in a free society? Just look at the people in the world who travel furthest from where they're native to. Here's a hint. They're kinda pale...