*the half of them probably don’t

Under Brehon Law which existed here for about 3,500 years there was no prison system & no death penalty and yet it seemed to work quite well. Not saying I agree with the sign but history shows us there are, or least have been, alternatives to present systems.

I believe by ‘no prisons, no borders’ they are not being literal but are referencing the idea that capitalism facilitates borders between countries based on economic objectives and in that case places different countries in national ‘prisons’ whereby it’s citizens have the rules of that ‘prison’ enforced upon them.

So what they would like is an other socialist system like the old Soviet Union but on a global scale. Look how that turned out. Humans by their very nature are capitalist. It’s hard wired into us to try and make a profit in one form or another. Even in the form of bartering you offer something with the intent of getting something better.

Mick, you still don’t know what capitalism is.
Try and dictionary to begin with.
Those workers being paid a fraction of the value they produce with the rest (the surplus) being controlled by industrial capitalists.
Bartering for your own personal benifit does not for this model. Capitalism is young, barely a few centuries in existence. Even Adam smith disagreed with you.

Fit

Magnificent armchair economics there Mick! So, do tell please, if “Humans by their very nature are capitalist” how come it is a relatively recent system in human history, and how come alternative economic models have endured for long periods historically? Feudalism, for example, was the predominant economic system in Europe for about 500 years, and remnants of this system of economic governance still persist to this day (see House of Lords in the UK).
Your assertion that “It’s hard wired into us to try and make a profit in one form or another” really isn’t supported by anything, either scientific or economic. It appears you have confused the incentivisation of capital and labour from economic theory with the method of that incentivisation from monetary economics. Any system of economic governance that incentivises labour and investment, and ensures the most efficient use of resources (as measured by profit in monetary economics) can function. All that is really “hard-wired” into us is survival and reproduction instincts; little else is free from cultural and societal influence.

People have been buying and selling since man became civilised. When a a merchant sold say wheat in ancient Babylon which he bought from the farmer at a fraction of the price he was selling it at would that not be called capitalism? Just because you stick a name on something doesn’t change the action.

No, that would not be called capitalism Mick, that would be called trade. The existence of the profit for the merchant in the trade is the incentivisation I have already described above. Trade will exist under almost all economic systems; capitalism is a system whereby the possession and control of the means of production and the means of supply (i.e. trade) are solely in private hands. I hope you will notice from this definition that you don’t live in a definitively capitalist society, and indeed no such societies exist. I think you should consider Eoin’s advise and properly define exactly what capitalism is before defending it so ardently.

The Oxford English Dictionary’s description of Capitalism.
noun
[mass noun]
an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state: an era of free-market capitalism
private ownership is a key feature of capitalism

Now what you called trade and what I described above sounds much like the dictionary definition.

Sounds much like it, but it’s not it. Your OED ref defines capitalism as a political & economic “system”, what you described previously was just an individual trade. I have been in (supposedly) communist countries before and engaged in trades exactly like the one you described, but that doesn’t make these countries capitalist. I do understand why you’re confusing the two, but you must remember that capitalism is a system, not just a market.
Like you, I am a proponent of capitalism generally; however I also recognise its limitations. If capitalism truly was the perfect system as you seem to view it, we would not have public hospitals, public road and rail networks, public schools etc. and more importantly would not require a welfare state. That all of these exist, are under state control (un-capitalist by your definition), and are by-and-large deemed necessary would appear to indicate that capitalism without socialism cannot work. (Similarly, soviet communism without capitalism could not survive, but that’s another discussion altogether).

Yes Helen they have the right of Peaceful Protest. The do not have the right to disrupt the lives of everyone else. Many of those so called protesters were there with the sole intention of causing mayhem and confronting the police. Why else would you go on a “Peaceful Protest” wearing a face covering and as was heard on live TV shouting “at them” towards the police.
Now I am sure there were some honest protesters there you we both know that most if not all of these type of demonstrations get hijacked by violent anarchists.