that isn't entirely true. small groups behave more like communes. think of small tribes or family units. everyone has to pull their weight, but much is done simply for the good of others or for the good of the group as a whole. the domination of the market only emerges when a group grows to a certain size.

i would suggest that civilization requires both communes and markets to function properly -- basically, communes interacting with other communes and individuals in a market. markets may get you what you want, but to get things done, groups must behave like communes, all working together -- you do not barter over what you will get out of individual tasks. true, tasks are done in exchange for a continued wage, and the establishment of a job is done in a market. but once you are within a group, what is most effective? doing every task because you are paid to do so, or because you want the product to be as good as possible? I think that ties into one of the reasons that startups are so much more effective than large corporations; if I can try to put my finger on it, pride for the product and group cohesiveness.

i don't know what the answer is, but I just want you to consider that markets are not only not the only tool humans have used to cultivate civilization, but they are not even the first tool.

and when technology progresses to the point where we can give every individual a chance at a healthy and productive life at no cost to society, they will certainly not be the last.

what your describing is continuing contracts. this is covered by markets. many informal exchanges would be better off if they were formalized in contracts.

But why do you need to offer them something when you could just take it? The answer is that they will shove a gun in your face if you do. Property rights are just as much based on force as any other law.