There is no co-operation in trade without qualification and thus exclusion.
I'm afraid I miss your point here. Of course "qualification" is inherent in the very definition of "trade", as in my offer of peas is qualified by a reciprocal offer of sex, and yes, there are those who will be excluded from that offer (I may be desparate, but do have some minimum standards). But as there are apt to be a handful who are not sufficiently interested in my offer in the first place, I'm don't comprehend the significance you are attaching to the "exclusion"
of any I might not trade with.
Trade as it currently stands is prohibited to more than it is available to and that creates scarcity,
nah, you are smarter than that. First, trade may be prohibited to a few, and it may be unavailable to a great many more, but that can be rectified easily enough with existing political systems. More importantly, scarcity is not "created" by the lack of trade. Scarcity exists where people want something but don't have it...trade diminishes scarcity.
which dictates prices
scarcity does influence price, assuming there is a demand to begin with. To illustrate the point, despite the fact I don't sing in public very often (scarcity), there is has not been much disappointment expressed (lack of demand). Scarcity is simply the product of demand (based on either real or percieved value) and availability.
Even the warmest efforts in barter are not efficient when compared to the simple exchanged based purely and exclusively on demand.
What is the mechanism and motivation for the exchange you speak of?
Because a sustainable method of pea farming would be shared and enjoyed.
Wait...if we are all pea farming, who is operating the lifts at the mountain? And what on earth would make me enjoy pea farming?
This would be true of any commodity.
Ahh...I get it, we all do everything, we all have access to everything so we all want for nothing...this is a great plan! It is, of course, physically impossible, but no plan is perfect.
Let us all go snowboarding.
Snowboarding is only for the Chosen.
It could be said that a potential mate, who already has a suitor is not as good as one who does not.
That could be said...but people tend to settle for whatever is handy.
With a world to choose from, why would you presume that the unattainable was the only ambition worth being sought?
1. I don't have the world to choose from...I am a physical being with physical limitations...I have to make choices...I can't have it all.
2. I don't equate the unattainable with worthy ambition...that is why I'm shooting holes in your pie-in-the-sky premise that money is the root of all evil.
Doing away with the money system will not eliminate or even regulate competition among people. Only the exercise of intellect holds the promise of curbing excess. That is why exercises such as this one, in which ideas are put forth and critiqued are imminently worthwhile.
But then a woman with no womb is completely useless (from the intrinsically selfish human perspective) no?
Not touching that one.