Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

I didn't read any of this. I'm just going to make my case and leave it to you to counter.Minimum wageHaving a minimum wage guarantees unemployment because if the market rate calls for a lower wage than the minimum wage allows for, then companies will have to lay off workers to cut costs. Furthermore, already large companies can lobby the government to enact further barriers-to-entry such as unnecessary licences and unfair tax-brackets to hinder competition, allowing them to increase the cost of said product above the market rate until it is enough to turn a profit despite having over-paid workers, thus allowing themselves to expand while their competition struggles to get off the ground. The greed you so adamantly oppose? Yeah, it's easier when there is a minimum wage in place.MoneyAs for money, money is a medium of exchange. Removing money =/= removing greed. All that will happen is another medium will arise because the market tends towards standardization. In order to enforce such a thing would require the complete expansion of the state into the private sector (which is communism, in case you still haven't looked into it). Little known fact, since market forces had been pretty much eradicated in the USSR, the central planners had no idea where to redistribute tax money. Eventually they started looking at the U.S. economy to see where supply and demand were reaching equilibrium and mirrored their own economy after it. Understand the implication of this; this means that a nation without money was only sustainable to the extent that they followed the lead of a country doing the exact opposite of what they were doing. Why did they fail anyway? Well, take nails for example. Since nail production couldn't be governed by market forces, the government required them to meet a certain quota of nail production. They had to produce a certain amount of kg of nails per week. The problem is, they had no idea which kinds of nails to make since there was no way to tell which kinds had the highest demand. So, in order to meet the quota faster, they over-produced large scaffold and cut nails and under-produced the small roofing and slating nails, thus simultaneously causing both a crippling shortage and rampant over-abundance in the same sector. This happened in pretty much every sector which eventually lead to the total collapse of this money-free system.  The "New man"Man will never change his world view to a money-free perspective on economics. Money is merely a medium of exchange, a standard measure to make competitive choices. What you want is for man to evolve out of his competitive nature, which is exactly the opposite of what evolution does. Evolution is driven by competition and so is the market. What you're asking for is impossible.Besides, competition in the market does not lead to poverty and wage slavery. Just the opposite, competition amongst like firms is the reason why we are as wealthy and technologically advanced as we are today. The large abusive corporation we have are the result of the governments expansion into the private sector by enacting barriers-to-entry used to cripple competition. You think it's the other way around because you don't know anything about economics. You only see the surface and assume you're seeing the whole picture. You're not.