(1) Begging the question is entirely different than stating an opinion. An opinion is never a logical fallacy, by definition.
(2) Cooperation is not sharing. Again, by definition.
(3) Cooperation is not optimization. Optimization may include cooperation, but does not require it. Sometimes cooperation is less efficient. Optimization can be achieved through automation reducing the resources and people required thereby eliminating cooperation entirely.
(4) Two problems with the Amish as an example of a sharing economy. First, it is bad logic to take a tiny community (The Amish are 0.02783% of the global population) and apply it to the whole of humanity. There is certainly evidence that some systems of governance and economics will not work based upon geography. Humans have encountered many different geographical problems on this planet and have made many different systems to facilitate living in those regions. One size will not fit all. Second, the Amish help each other, but they can exclude those who do not follow their strict rules with out resorting to murder, and they are fairly capitalistic in their economic activities. You are mistaking a religious sect that limits access to technology for sharing. The Amish communities work because they account honestly for human nature and only include those willing to live by their rules. Not a good example and NOT what the Sharing Economy is as described by the article. A microcosm is not an economy - an example of sharing system that works would be the ancient monasteries of medieval Europe. However, that is a monastery not an economy. The whole of the European economy did not function that way. Small groups may share in a commune system, but this is the exception and not the rule.
(5) > Just because most men are to stupid to value the spiritual truth of "You receive what you give", and "Treat others how you want to be treated" in spite of man's obsessive path of destruction, this in no way negates man's potential to live a harmonious and in unity with all things. Both of these quotes are not basic human nature. They are ideals that humans strive to achieve. The facts, the demonstrable facts, are different: You do not receive what you give - you receive based upon your ability to convince others - what you labor is worth, what your service is worth, etc. You may treat others how you want to be treated but they are under no obligation to do the same to you and very often don't care enough to notice. Ideals are wonderful, but they are not something upon which a real working economy is based. Whining about that cruel fact has been the foiled battle cry of every Utopian with an IDEA that the whole world would be BETTER if everyone just GOT ALONG! But humans are humans and aren't changing very fast -- certainly not as fast as our technology. Complaining about the selfishness of humans is not, has not, will not change human nature. Again, in order to build a stable economic system that works for everyone, human nature in all of its variety must be honestly accounted. Crying about how the majority of the human race doesn't live up to the ideal values promoted by any decent philosophy is wasting time and effort. None of us can change the human race. Let me state that again: NONE of US can change the HUMAN race. We have neither the tools to do so nor the ethical trust required to make such modifications to our progeny.
(6) I have no illusions that the human race as it is now will ever see an end to war and commerce - both are fundamental to who we are as a species. WE have been trading and fighting since before we had fire. War and commerce have driven every endeavor, every advancement, and continue to do so. Like gravity, this is a truth that simply is and it cares not for our opinions of its fairness, rightness, or purity. Where humans blunder most often is when we mistake our fictional ideas of who we are for our actual selves.