That was useful, and I do accept that barter is a foolish, impractical system for anything bigger than a hippy dippy kiwi farm. It's very unfortunate then, that I hate money and banks. I think living in a very primitive society that has no need for money is superior to using some kind of modern economics system. It is by far the lesser of two evils.
This seems to contradict itself quite seriously.
If you acknowledge that barter is a foolish, impractical system for anything larger than a small commune, how is living in a "very primitive" society superior to modern economics?
As I said in my original post, modern economics has allowed our species to travel to other worlds. You can't build a space shuttle with barter.
How would your alternative system handle something as expensive and complicated as a space program, which requires huge resources and many very individuals with highly specialised skills?
How would your alternative system allow individuals to specialise, as money does? What I mean by this is; in my original example, I could focus entirely on kiwi farming because the medium of exchange I used was essentially sorted. In your system, how would computer programmers, bioengineers, chemists, etc earn a living?
If your system would rather we not have those, there are very prominent "return to agriculture" social systems that have sprung up in recent memory, such as the Khmer Rouge. In many ways, your philosophy is eerily similar. The Khmer Rouge despised education and had educated people executed. They also held in high esteem the various primitive mountain tribes (as you seem to hold primitive societies in high esteem). The Khmer Rouge's social policy focused on working towards a purely agrarian society.
Would you say that this is an accurate representation of the government system you want to create?
