The underlying issue in groups of people is that there is always a means of control (which is always good AND bad for different groups), which always wraps around a means of wealth (to various degrees and in various ways for different groups), so it is fundamentally a battleground between conflicting interests.

It can be civil (friendly arguments resolved directly to lawsuits) or it can be violent (cartels dissolving people in barrels of acid), but it always has the same problems - who has control/sets the rules. Those almost always include control of the money, control of women/men in their respective domains of producing kids/violence, and the definition of 'the truth'.

If you want to learn about the many different ways to accomplish goals like this, you can look into the terms 'decentralization' and 'post-scarcity society'.

Rather than wasting everyone’s time, why don’t you enlighten us about how you think those different concepts should combine? Be sure to include examples.

... Why don't you?

If you think such a complex and broad question can be distilled to a pithy HN comment, go right ahead - why demand that I do it?

I pointed OP to the words that best enable them to find their own answers. That's not a waste of time, it's useful information that they seem to have lacked.

If you don't think that's useful, fine - offer your own answer.

But you didn’t help them: you just added noise if you’re just mentioning two large topics without any connection or examples of plausibly working systems. For example, post scarcity is hypothetical at this point and nothing about it is incompatible with authoritarian governments. Similarly, decentralization covers a lot of ground but satellites are inherently centralized to some extent and there’s little precedent for decentralized funding of something that big, and even terrestrial networking has few examples of a decentralized system resisting attacks by even relatively weak governments.