""...Economics is the study of how individuals and societies choose to employ those resources: what goods and services will be produced, how they will be produced, and how they will be distributed among the members of society."
equating that with the entirety of human relationships sounds wing-nutty, if not intentionally (and pathetically) manipulative."
You quote it right there. "how individuals and societies". Groups and individuals.
There are multiple economic fields, that do not just follow goods and services in the realm of production. An example of this would be Public Choice. Which is studying humans behavior in the political realm.
Science of any and all kind chiefly uses descriptions and analysis of anything. It groups things into categories, from complex molecular compounds and elements to basic female and male.
You say my inability to frame life in any context other than economics speaks volumes but that's like saying, "your inability to frame atomic matter in any context other than atomic structure speaks volumes". It doesn't make sense and again, I am not trying to insult. I'm trying to understand but I get the feeling you don't understand what economics actually is. For instance, what are these other ways of framing life besides how people interact and choose to live?
You say you want no economic system but how do you make that occur? "any exchanges that happen between me and those i choose to relate with will be based on our individual and mutual needs and desires."
That is the basis of economics. That is a description of how you wish to provide goods and serves, isn't it? Based on mutual needs and desires?
I'm not trying to challenge your beliefs, just trying to understand them but its difficult when I'm talking about certain scientific aspects, like parts of anthropology and being told that science doesn't matter in this areas or doesn't apply in a way which it specifically does. But your exchanges and interactions on humans are weighted choices. You choose what you find as need and desire. Well you wouldn't trade someone all your food for some tools or water, unless you were able to gain more food or you'd starve to death. So you'd look at what you have and what you (and others) would be willing and able to part with. So its basic economics but saying its not doesn't answer any questions. I understand you do not want a structured economy like defined forms of socialism, capitalism, corporatism, etc but economics exists when you have more than one individual or group interacting. To ignore this is on par with ignoring DNA as a building block of life.
Just for the record, I am not capitalist or socialism. I am not anarchist or statist. I personally follow the non-aggression principle which originates from a few different philosophies because I do not wish to inflict my will onto others. I am simply researching as many sides as possible so that I may understand them, explain them to others and defend them. I try to gain all side's info, both from source material, specific opposing structures and from those who follow it.
So when I am talking about economics, I am talking about the science of it. For instance I may mention the endowment effect which is a documented occurance in human behavior:
And of course, to point another thing out, it originates from a specific area of economics entitled Behavioral economics:
So even without a set structure, economic theories and analysis don't all go away. So I understand what you mean when you say no economic structure but one will exist no matter what. It won't be a centrally planned or authorized economy but human interact and behavior will always exist with or without a government.
So when you say you want "any exchanges that happen between me and those i choose to relate with will be based on our individual and mutual needs and desires." how does this work? Do you not care where the origin of those items come from? An example to help, if your community (you and those who live around you) suffer from a famine and you need food to survive, what factors come into play? If another anarchist society chose to focus on scientific applications to cultivate food, would you be against it if it were GMOs? Would you feel those interactions should be up front and all information disclosed? Meaning are you fine if they lie to you about its origin, as long as the general category of food is being satisfied or do you think those interactions, to truly be voluntary and void of coercion, require all information to be up front?
Maybe you haven't analyzed it to that extent or perhaps there is some information I am missing. But the information so far hasn't explained to me what I am looking for but has rather been avoiding the issue. Again, please do not be offended. I talk straight forward and normal societal interaction tends to frown on straight forwardness with lack of social hoops jumped through. I only wish to understand. I also want to thank you for engaging in this conservation with me, just in case you are offended and discontinue the conversation. I have appreciated your time.