Then don't attempt to make arguments that depend on these differences - you will screw up, as you have, every time.
No problem, I don't. I know that this will not prevent you from claiming that such differences are relevant - I have recognized now that you are not really interested in these differences themself, but simply use them for cheap polemics of type "you are so stupid that you mingle notion1 with notion2".
To answer this cheap attack strategy, I will no longer accept any claimes of this type, if they are not supported by evidence that the difference is relevant. As evidence I would count that a statement we are arguing about would change its truth value if one would change the notion.
The infrastructure of them necessary for a market does not exist unless a government establishes it. People can ride horses and walk around on their own personal business without government. They can't set up a market and transport themselves and their goods to said market without government infrastructure.
This is already completely .... So one can use camels to transport themself and whatever else the camel can carry without government, but if one uses them to carry these goods to a popular meeting place, under a nice big tree, where one may find people interested in exchanging some goods, one needs a government.
About the medium of exchange:
Sure. It will be created using a government, of course - that's how it's done.
LOL. I guess, the prison inmates, if they are not allowed to have any cash in the prison to prevent illegal markets, do not simply use one of the goods they are allowed to have and are sufficiently popular as a medium of exchange, to simplify their (anyway illegal) barter, but ask the government to create such a medium. And the governement, of course, supports this, and establishes, say, tobacco as the medium of exchange. This is done because the government hopes to reduce tobacco smoking, given that economists have found that if tobacco is used as a medium of exchange, it will be, in part, used as liquidity or for savings even by non-smokers.
It's a fact that the infrastructure provided by governments is necessary for the existence of illegal as well as legal markets. You seem to be having great difficulty with this matter.
The point is that it is used - of course, everybody will use what is available, one would be stupid not to do this - but it is not necessary. What is necessary is that different people own different things, and not necessarily the things they want to own. And the solution of this problem is exchange, starting with simple sporadic barter.
Your habit of posting like that when cornered does not recommend your positions or claims. You were told that governments were necessary for the standardization of weights and measures, as growing markets require. You were linked to an illustration of the process - the history of the metric system.
Let's translate: You don't like my habit of quoting the sources you have provided, finding (without much work) quotes which contradict the claims you want to support with these sources.
It is, in fact, quite interesting, because it is quite untypical. It is much more typical that the proponents of even the most absurd claims can provide some sources which unequivocally support their claims. You, instead, provide sources which contradict your own claims and, instead, support my position much more than your.
Its already the third case. The first was the paper about child labor. It strongly supported my basic claims that the usual way to "fight" child labor harms the children, are, instead, in the interest of the rich Western firms who want to prevent competition from the Third World, and allowed me to illustrate my thesis about the behaviour of scientists in politically influenced sciences.
The next was Piketty, which has already in the introduction supported my main thesis - that the main source of information about the distribution of wealth are the statistics about taxation. Actually, I'm on page 210, and have not found yet anything which would give an independent information about this.
By the way, I have seen today in the newspaper a comment about an actual study of the German DIW about the development of wealth distribution in Germany. A point which was mentioned was that the data do not allow to tell anything about the wealth of the superrich. Surprise, surprise.
I'm beginning to understand how you come by the notion that states and corporations and gangs and so forth should be controlled by morality, rather than government - you think they are people, and have moral values and wants and so forth. When you talk about the will of the State, it's not a metaphor or shorthand term for a pattern of behavior - you really think the State has a "will".
Nonsense. The point is a different one. I reject the idea that people can get rid of their moral responsibility if they simply act as members of some organization. If I kill because of my own interest, I'm a murderer. If I kill for the interest of a group of people, I'm a murderer too. But some people - like you - seem to reject this idea. Or restrict it, to the particular case of "bad" groups of people, like criminal gangs or terrorist organizations. Instead, if you kill in the interest of a "good" group, you are not a murderer, but a hero, or a policeman, a soldier and so on.
I reject these double standards. A murderer is a murderer, even if he acts as a member of some organization, which has made the decision and given him the order to kill. The moral responsibility for this murder is a shared one - shared between all members of the organization. And, of course, a fair trial would have to take into account the differences in the responsibility between the members. A conscripted soldier, in danger of imprisonment or worse if he refuses to kill, will have a much smaller responsibility than the usual murderer. A contract soldier has much more responsibility. And Obama, who has only signed the killing lists, without personally killing anybody, will share a large part.
This subdivision of responsibility for crimes made by an organization is a difficult problem for justice. But the basic principle should be clear - the organization as a whole has the same responsibility as a single person for the same deed. If, say, the just penalty for a particular deed would be some compensation for injury, this compensation would not change at all, not even by a cent, if done by an individual or a group. How the group manages to get this compensation from its members can be left to the group - but it has to pay the compensation to the victim.
This is in complete agreement with common sense, and also behind the concept of considering organizations as a juristic person.
Then what is your problem with correcting your vocabulary and straightening out your muddled thinking?
If it would be simply a correction, there would be no problem at all. Such a correction would look like this: "The claim that "notion1 is X" is inaccurate, it would be better to write "notion2 is X" instead". And not like "You are so stupid that you even mingle notion1 with notion2". And what makes the difference between the two is not the use of defamatory language - this would be only a problem of lack of civilization - but that there would be a proposal from your side which would be acceptable for you. And, assuming that I consider the difference between the notions as irrelevant, acceptable for me too. So, it would be a nice way to find agreement.
The second form, instead, does not lead to such an agreement. It will usually start a meaningless discussion about the probably quite irrelevant differences between notion1 and notion2, which ends nowhere.
This does not mean that there are no good reasons for you to prefer the second variant. In particular, this second variant is obviously preferable for you if my "notion1 is X" is as inacceptable to you as the modified "notion2 is X". In this case, the civilized form of correction would give you nothing at all. You would be faced with the challenge to argue against the corrected version "notion2 is X", which would not be easier that to argue against "notion1 is X".