btw, when you striclty limit things and say things like "that's all" its like a huge red flag of a logical fallacy in an arguement.

and btw what you are argueing here is only going ot lead this topic astray from the original question and create a nice new thing to attack that really once this catches on and flies is going to have no relevance to the original thing posed.

To respond to your post though, think through this. In an primative purely nomadic tribe, why does it make sense to claim a carcass as only yours? It will spoil before you are through with it. Why carry more furs than you need while your family member died, decreasing the tribe numbers making things more difficult for all. Carrying excess constantly takes energy and is cumbersome.

To respond to Turak, the reason most people aren't going to have an easy idea with completely tossing the idea of money/bartering is because no society has ever known anything different, at least to the extent your talking of. There have been some tries on some good ideas but it has never happened. My reasoning for saying that is based on the dawn of civilization and the role that bartering had in it.

We would be primative pack animals. Why do i say this? Because it is the only example of a "society" existing without these kinds of things. We may have rather complex primative little groups but it will be based on matablity (so what if its not a word) strength, ability to find food, fight etc. Thats my thoughts for the day.