Like this article? Get DP delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe here:
"We'll give you everything you 'need' for free: just follow us into the enormous cage we've created."
Ya... Right. If these Luciferians could make good on any of their promises, it would already be, but they can't. The Zeitgeist movement is just the prevailing thought of our age, and what our age wants is "free stuff" while self worshiping mass murderers use that Zeitgeist to systematically destroy society leaving it unable to feed itself or barter through industry, liberty, and money.
There's NOTHING they can do to get rid of money, and to condemn it as evil is to condemn everything mankind produces in an attempt to survive as evil.
To declare money as evil is to in fact declare your desire to live evil, and if you know anything about liberty, you should know wanting to live is not an unjust desire.
... definitely socialist, which is amazing considering he shows how corrupt government is in his documentaries.
His work on religion, however, is some of the best I've seen. Does a great job showing why all the religions share common themes: just an evolution from early astrology.
His political thinking, though, is crap.
He's not advocating for any government control over the actions of the people. His 'central' push is only for a central managed system to identify and publicly display what physical resources the planet has and how far down the path of using them up we are. The rest is all distributed demand based operation.
Regarding law, legal stuff and other restrictions, he advocates that 'human nature' would eliminate most of that need in a world of abundance.
On politics, my take is that he is more for a direct republic. One where the people directly vote on laws that everyone must live by. ...should a government even be needed.
He's also said, and I agree, that if we were to use all our resources efficiently (stop wasting a rare one when we could substitute an abundant one or an efficient way to use it) then all people could have all they want. This doesn't mean that everyone will get 3 mansions, 2 planes, a chopper, 8 super-cars, 4 yachts and a dozen jet-skis. Since most of those are low use goods, there's no reason we have to 'own' them. In other words, do you really want to own the jet-skis or would you be ok with them just being available when you go to the lake?
Think of it more like a volunteer time share among friends and family.
You might want to dig a little deeper into his platform.
I hope that explains it for you.
"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by George Smith --
BUY IT HERE: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521182093/ref=tsm_1_fb_lk
Invest in Liberty, one Apartment deal at a time with me, just ask me how & get rich with me.
You, and Mr. Paine below, both assume the results of making things abundant. You assume that there must be some limit or a major tragedy (of the commons) will definitely happen. You even assume that things will lead to requiring a central authority to get it all back in check.
IMO, this is all false assumptions. I'm truly convinced that if everyone had full access to whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, things would work themselves out better than any other system.
Think of the cookie analogy I presented a while back. Five little girls at a birthday party are presented with a plate of cookies. You and I can both guestimate well exactly what will happen if the cookie count is any number between 2 and 30. There will either be peer forced harmony or hurt feelings or some sharing or whatever. However, if there are more than maybe 20-30 cookies, the problem goes away. How many get eaten then? Maybe a dozen or less.
There's a mindset that will have to arise (naturally over time) that comes from changing our society from one of scarcity to one of abundance. Just like those girls... if they had all grown up in homes where cookies are very abundant, the 'eaten-number' would be much less than if all 5 had lived lives of harsh scarcity. The latter case would probably have them all stuffing 6 cookies each into their pockets for later. Do you see the difference between how people act in differing societal settings?
Regarding who will be building all these wonderful free things, Peter suggests, and I tend toward agreeing, that so few actual working 'jobs' will be needed that volunteers will more than cover that need. As a tech guy myself, I would love to play with some newfangled automation system to get it to make someone's new invention. If money wasn't an issue, I would certainly spend a significant amount of time on this for free because it would be a matter of pride in my work.
This still does not address the issue of authority but I believe that is only relevant during the transition period. For those years?? that people haven't yet learned that all things are free, there will still be hoarding and vandalism/class competition. I have my own beliefs on how to deal with this but Peter doesn't seem to address it much. I think this is his single biggest failing.
My solution to the transition actually supports both the full Zeitgeist movement if carried out far enough and the ultimate libertarian principles if halted just before money was forgotten. That idea is to make money so abundant over a steady but predictable time frame, that people simple lose their care for dealing with it. Think of it this way, if every (productive) worker on the planet were to receive raises totaling 500% over the next 5 years, how would you respond? You wouldn't just blow it all (after the initial partying) because you would still be working for it. My prediction is that people would eliminate budget waste (bank expenses) and then monthly payments (car, home, school) and then monthly bills (solar, aquaponics, electric cars, etc.) and then save for an early retirement.
An average family now could then retire in 20 years or less. However, a new family born into this existing system could retire in 8 years with everything paid off, free and clear. They would have higher quality products that lasted a long time and this would minimalize the consumerism environment. As they retired earlier and earlier, the workforce would shrink below even the needed workforce and cause a market driven push for both more automation and less overall production. At this point, it's very hard to even envision any government ran social programs, mandates or handouts surviving because the local, private ones would be so many times more effective (what us libertarians already know) that people would stop using them. In reality, I don't even think any governments could survive, ultimately.
This is the world we should be living in now, had we not succumbed the fruits of our labors to the banks for the last century. It is the ultimate world a libertarian could want for it gives all people a fair shake in determining their portion of the market. I believe it is inevitable if we simply eliminate them now. And we both know how easy it would be to boycott the stock of a bank or mega-corporation into a death spiral in today's economy. We just have to coordinate and focus on single companies, not entire industries.
But, going a step further, what happens when the tipping point is reached? When retirement is so low that extended families are now supported by a single income... When manufacturing is drastically reduced because the concepts of planned obsolescence, overselling and perpetual growth are out of the picture... When factories no longer have employees hoarding as much wealth and power as they can get... When quality products return to being passed on to the next generation... And when any amount of money is loaned to family and friends on 'favor' or 'handshake' basis... When those points are reached, what transactions will even be worth tracking your money for? Wouldn't it be fair to say that peer status will then become the new currency? And isn't that exactly what Peter is pushing for, without his knowing it?
Does this clear up why I disagree with the labeling of Peter's system as socialist, communist or Marxist?
In short, no it doesn't. What you (and PJ) are explaining is not only a form of socialism, it is based on false and unrealistic pretenses. Scarcity is a FACT, it is not something that can be done away with, especially when you do away with incentives to produce. Do you not agree that there is a limited number of resources on this planet?
Where property rights are not well defined there WILL be a misallocation of resources. The oceans and air are a common property without well defined property rights, and are as abundant as any resource you can get on this planet. How well are those resources taken care of?
Your idea of making money so abundant people just lose care of dealing with it is also a false concept. You can make the currency so abundant that it is worthless and then people don't have a need for it, but something else would just take the place of that currency as money. You are NOT going to do away with money. You see money came about to get around the Coincidence of Wants problem, that problem would still exist and the market (black market if need be) would bring about a different form of money.
Everything being automated would cause an extra high demand on energy, energy that in most forms causes pollution. You might say we'll have solar and wind power for energy, but what happens when Florida is set up with energy from solar and wind and a hurricane knocks it all down? How do they rebuild if they don't have energy to?
I have listened to Peter Joseph before (Ted talk and interviews) and I come away thinking that this is a guy who has absolutely no education in economics whatsoever. His description of capitalism in the Ted talk alone shows he doesn't even know what it is. So to me this is a man who is totally ignorant of all we know about economics, who thinks he can design an entire economic system in that state of ignorance. And guess what, he basically designs the same kind of system that others ignorant in economics have, socialism. It's the dream of something for nothing, and that's been proven to be nothing more than a dream.
No. This is not socialism, not in the least. You're stuck on somehow controlling it into existence while I'm proposing that it will take place on its own.
Scarcity is absolutely most certainly NOT A FACT. Guaranteed, proven, period, point-blank. TODAY, scarcity is the only way things can exist but that is by design of the banks, not the natural market or any resource limit.
With 95% of everything made today going straight to the landfill in 6 months, you can get an idea of this problem. Stopping that waste would reduce resource use to 1/20th of current levels. Making things last 1 year instead would again double it. Making things last 20 years on average instead would reduce our resource use to 1/800th of current levels. I've done tons of research on this and my numbers actually show much greater gains, but I'll stick with that. So the resources only need to be used in a smart fashion, not abused for personal gain.
Your tragedy of the commons is actually much more illustrative of capitalist use of paid resources more than it is of the free ones. Which category are we running out of, Air/water or lithium/oil/helium? See what I mean?
I can assure you that energy will not be a problem, either in amount or in its pollution. The current energy crisis has been in play long enough now that, thanks to the internet, the real solutions are finally making their way to the table. I'm not talking about the mainstream ones but rather genuine solutions that apply to each region, last endlessly, are made from nothing but abundant resources, are recyclable and fairly cheap. In short, there are no downsides to them other than independent initial financing. These are the equivalent of today's refrigerators. By that I mean, they will become a fixture in every home from a single purchase and kill off the entrenched energy industries just like fridges killed the centralized ice market. They're just still trying to hash out their financing because the existing finance system wants them to keep energy monopolized against their wishes. Stay tuned.
The coincidence of wants arises from scarcity and the impulse toward hoarding. It doesn't come into play when there are too many cookies on the plate. This is an important concept so spend some time really trying to understand it. It supports most of the rest of this stuff.
In this game, money is nothing more than a placeholder for personal wealth (beyond the obvious medium of exchange). I'm only using this placeholder to represent overall personal wealth. The real abundance behind this is the personal wealth. The material goods, homes, cars, gold, cash, and future labor. All these things now bear much more fruit than they did way back in 2013 or so. The nominal value of the money can change all over the board because it doesn't matter. What will be happening is that wages will outstrip inflation by more than 5 times the rate that inflation has outstripped wages for the last 100 years. It's nothing more than a reversal in this trend.
And where does that wealth come from? Well, in the last century, the average worker has become 5 times as productive through the aid of external energy. At the same time, he's been robbed of 97% of the value of that labor through inflation. All I'm advocating it we remove that second part, either by making it happen or waiting decades to centuries more. It is the fruits of our now-technology-enhanced labor without the thievery of banking games of the last century that return us to abundance.
I am sorry but I don't want to waste my time having a conversation with someone who denies absolute facts like scarcity of resources.
Scarcity - the fundamental economic problem of having seemingly unlimited human wants and needs in a world of limited resources.
You are saying that it is possible for everyone to have everything they want by denying that scarcity is fact.
You are saying that we have unlimited resources by denying that scarcity is fact.
Please tell me one resource on Earth that is unlimited in quantity? Just one.
Time is a resource, a very important resource, is time not scarce?
Do you have all the time you want? unlimited time?
Well I don't, and I think I'll choose to not waste anymore of it debating this with you. It's just too silly and never going to happen anyway so why...ya know.
I didn't say the resources are unlimited. I said that we can essentially consider some of them unlimited because we can reduce their use by 1000 times AND then recycle them repeatedly. Is that not the same thing in the context of human need? You really need to listen closer to what people say and stop assuming you know what they mean.
Time is not a resource. It doesn't even exist. It's the one thing that's both limited and unlimited, doesn't exist and yet gives value to everything else at the same time. Nice straw man.
You want a truly unlimited resource? How about sunshine. That's pure energy. We can convert it at only .0000001% efficiency and still have more available than we can ever use. In the context of human history, both past and forever in our future, it will never run out. (And before you jump on that, yes I'm saying that people won't be around in 5 billion years when it does run out.)
You want another unlimited resource? How about water, sand and iron? Those are all in more than enough abundance that it is literally impossible to use them up in human times. Guess what? You combine sunlight with sand and you get glass. You combine sunlight with water and you get both hydrogen (mobile energy) and fresh drinking water which can grow all the foods we could want. And lastly, if you combine sunlight with iron (and a pinch of carbon from any source down to plant material), you get steel which can build the machines to do all of the above. Then... you use sunlight directly and you get the energy to power those machines and any others we want to serve us. And when we're done, we can use sunlight to recycle all of the above all over again. Don't be so closed minded on the options we have.
Scarcity in human wealth is no different than saying there isn't enough food to feed all the people in the world. It's pure BS and you know it. The food exists. It's just the politics and economics that's stopping it from being purchased by those hungry people. The rest of the resources are the same way. Sure, we're running way too short on some, like helium, and can't replenish or recycle it but if we recognize this before it's too late, maybe we can find alternatives for enough of it's uses so we can make it last a very long time. At least what Peter and I are both advocating here recognizes that and doesn't just give up, saying, "Well since we can't fix it, why try?"
And as far as the overall wealth of humans in total. You do realize, don't you, that if some free market miracle came along and made people as equal as they honestly deserve, that everyone but the top 1% (.01%??) would be possibly dozens of times as wealthy. Why are these concepts so hard to grasp? Perhaps it's because hook, line and sinker, you swallowed every word and failed concepts some economics scam artist, masquerading as a college professor, suckered you into regurgitating for a lousy grade. My god, man. Start thinking for yourself.
I see you are in the same boat of economic ignorance as Peter Joseph, just the same as others that have advocated this dream world goofiness that I have tried to discuss it with. You said scarcity is not a fact, proven, period, point blank,...that is what you said. Which means you believe everyone can have everything they want, which means you believe there are unlimited resources. Because if you believe everyone can't have everything they want, then choices have to start being made, see where I am going here....probably not.
I can't have a conversation with you, you do not know the basics required to have an economic conversation, that's clear. Almost everything you (and PJ for that matter) are saying show ignorance of economics. And I am not going to take the time to try and teach you. You can say I am not thinking for myself or outside the box or regurgitated professors (of which all were Keynesian and I didn't agree with on hardly anything) yada yada blah blah blah or whatever makes you feel better.
How did you get here anyway? Do you not support Ron Paul? Have you not listened to him, or is he not thinking for himself and regurgitating professors as well?
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
... and I concluded that his ideas are socialist or maybe anarcho-communist (left-anarchist). They are the same thing, IMO.
Seems like he has never learned about the Tragedy of the Commons.
Take your jet ski example. Would I like to just have it to use and not have to own it? Sure, and so would 50,000 other people. Who will decide who gets to use it when? Who maintains it when it breaks down? Who would buy or make a new one when that one is no longer working?
It's a pipe dream to think that assets can be used by all when nobody has any specific property rights. Either (a) everybody will use existing resources until those resources are used up (Tragedy of the Commons) and nobody will have any self-interest in replacing those resources, or (b) all resources will have to be "allocated" by a central authority (i.e. socialist government).
The first is anarcho-communism (or "pure" communism in the Karl Marx sense) and the second is socialism (in the pseudo-communism sense of the USSR).
These ideas can never work in the real world. Occupy Wall Street type stuff.
So, would I like to use that jet ski without owning it? Sure, and I can do that RIGHT NOW. I go down to the lake, RENT the jet ski from the owner, pay him a fee, and use it for a specific amount of time. The owner maintains it. The owner replaces it when the time comes. And I can use it again the next time I am down at the lake.
Property rights are absolutely necessary in a civilized society, whether minarchist or anarcho-capitalist. My primary takeaway from Peter is that he does not recognize this fundamental fact of reality.
But turned it off when he started making un-proven and wild claims about an imaginary connection between ancient astrology and beliefs of Judaism and Christianity. Those claims are easily debunked for those who actually take the time to learn the truth.
Ron Paul - Intellectual hero
... then why do ancient religions pre-dating Christianity have stories of miracles that are the same basic story line as Christianity?
Why is Christ depicted with the Sun behind his head? Why do some church crosses have the Sun, or abbreviated version of the Zodiac?
Why is Sirius lined up with Orion's Belt on precisely December 25th, pointing at the horizon where the Sun rises on that day?
Why is Easter celebrated at that particular time of year?
You could just come back with, "'Cuz God says so," but then you'd have to prove the existence of god, which you cannot do.
It is obvious to ME, regardless of what theists think, that religion is a natural outgrowth of humans questioning the world around them, and that includes astrology for the basis of the stories, along with a little morality and life lessons thrown in the mix.
Makes all the sense in the world, and Peter was the first guy who put it into a sensible context that I ever saw. My hat is off to him for that.
"... then why do ancient religions pre-dating Christianity have stories of miracles that are the same basic story line as Christianity?"
This is not entirely true. Zeitgeist puts an anachronistic spin on
older religions, and sometimes just gets things wrong. Here are a couple of articles to consider:
"Why is Christ depicted with the Sun behind his head? Why do some church crosses have the Sun, or abbreviated version of the Zodiac?"
The bible doesn't depict Jesus at all. Drawings of Jesus come from imaginations of people and are not considered scripture. It's not surprising that peoples imaginations would be syncretistic at times, but that is more representative of artists than Christianity.
"Why is Sirius lined up with Orion's Belt on precisely December 25th, pointing at the horizon where the Sun rises on that day?"
The Bible doesn't put any significance on December 25th. Some people wanted to change the emphasis of a pagan holiday by celebrating something non-pagan on that day. But that doesn't relate to the truth or falsity of Christianity.
"Why is Easter celebrated at that particular time of year?"
Number 9:1-4 places 'passover' on a particular day in the Hebrew calender. John 19:14-18 places the crucifixion of Jesus on a particular day in relation to the passover, which has a particular time relation to his resurrection. Christians originally used the Jewish observance of the passover to determine when they should celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, but a few hundred years later other Christians decided to go with a computational method based on a different calender system.
Atheist vs lucafarian, will book mark and listen later - it may be interesting.
Liberty = Responsibility
The funniest thing, for me, is that both men have done incredible amounts of research into historical causes of the present condition of the world, but both of them still seem think that the world continues to function with a "free market." This is as far from the truth as you can get. The Stock market is manipulated by the money handlers, the capital markets are manipulated by government force which is in turn controlled by the money handlers; localized economies are squashed by regulation at every level and/or a lack of capital, or functional scale. None of this is indicative of a "free market."
The other issue is cause of the current cultural obsession with the accumulation of "things." Peter mentions it once, that marketing psychology was introduced into politics around the turn of the last century. This is true. However its impact on the human psyche has been profound and very damaging. From my own perspective, it seems as though the cultural nature of greed stems from a basis of fear. People fear that anything and everything they own can be taken from them at any time by the government. This makes them greedy for more because more wealth, they think, will insulate them better from the theft. They will have more resources with which to defend themselves. this is not irrational, but it is conditioned. Neither Adam nor Peter seem to take this into account.
Voluntarism is by definition is a distribution of power, and an elimination of force. It is not just a virtue, but an essential principal to all peaceful human interaction. Peter's view of the future seems to ignore this vital point. Eliminate the causes for fear and you eliminate the effects of it.
~ Engage in the war of attrition.
Thank you for that.
However, I see some of your assessments the other way.
I don't think either of them see a free market existing today. That's the whole point they got involved for. Unless you include government being a purchasable commodity, in which case then yes, it's a hyper-free market, complete with freedom to enslave via violence.
I didn't catch Adam's reason for our obsession with material goods but Peter's is virtually exactly how you state it. This is one of the problems I have with TZM because I disagree. I believe the covert action wasn't to instill fear as much as it was to tie wealth to our social standing. In this way, people are always pegged to some rung on that ladder and there is an inherent fear (not trained) in losing position. Using this analogy explains both ends of the spectrum, not just the middle. Then by installing peer pressure on your placement on the social ladder, anyone at any level can be easily coaxed into compromising morals and principles for a buck. Additionally, all power then becomes a mere question of who has the most money. It's a very simple way to corrupt an entire planetary population with a few simple indirect actions.
Having followed TZM and Peter (and even Jacques and TVP) for years, I really don't think Peter misses that voluntarism is essential in its role. I think he is advocating that people be coerced (regardless of the means) to be educated that it is important while Adam is advocating that if we fix the economy and let technology advance, eventually people will figure it out on their own. There's merit in both, even when used together but I'm kind of starting to believe that the more people learn, the harder it may be to achieve. The reason is that as the Keynsians learn of this, they will actively fight it. In the end, those battles will be moot but not so much for their casualties.
My personal believe in all this is that if we kickstart a few businesses of our own that truly prosper because they're not based on infinite growth, covert consumerism or any debt, they will yield such higher wages and profits to the point that they'll catch on. The resulting wealth gain (multiples of current profits) to everyone involved will end many social problems and undermine socialism's support. The whole concept will spread like wildfire so no mass awareness campaign will even be necessary.
we are always and will always be in a free market. at any time the people can rise up and do what they should do. sadly the people around use make bad choices and continue this life style. you are born in a free market and will die in a free market. how you chose to change it and whats around you is what will create you perception.
The business that are started, however, must be unincorporated in any way and be managed, owned, and operated by those who are outside the corporate US stranglehold of citizenship.
I'm not sure what you mean my citizenship. Yes, the owners must be self reliant and personally accountable to their workers and their customers. This, imho, is the only way for the employees to keep their level of power to strike or even to negotiate fair (keeping ahead of inflation) wages.
To my way of thinking, doing all this means they must be funded by some local, creative method. While the first one might be hard to do, after that proves the point, the community could easily just fund it by donations because they'll know how much return they get for the increased local prosperity.
It's all about jurisdiction. It's very important. Are you subject to Statutes that have the "force" of law" because of your voluntary pledge of allegiance to that international corporate agent which is the US? or were you naturally born in one of the 50 States of the Union and are thus a National of that country under common law? The former grants you "Civil Rights" by the government which can be taken away or abridged at any time, and the latter provides you protection of you Natural Rights under the Declaration of Independence and the State Constitutions. In the jurisdiction of the US, which is limited to DC and the US Territories, you exist outside of the protections of the US Constitution, for the Constitution only has force and meaning within the jurisdiction of the 50 states. To be a State National and not a National of the US is to be a "non-resident alien" of the United States but places you as truly one of the People referred to in each of the States' Constitutions ans well as the organic Constitution for the united States. You could, as an alternative, choose to be a stateless person. But I believe this to be a risky venture as it places you outside the protection of any lawful jurisdiction.
See this thread for some further discussion on the matter: http://www.dailypaul.com/272266/they-want-you-to-stay-in-the...
Hope you can agree now. ;)
Ok, I'm back in sync with ya.
I forget about that so often because I'm convinced it'll be a non-issue. There's no way the people will allow them to act based on any scams like that which have secretly been in place for 150 years. They will be told it's BS from the end of a pitchfork.
Can you see a politician saying to a crowd, "No really. You signed a SSN form, I own you. I do. I... AAAHHHHH!"
I know what you're saying, and I have had to distill the illustration of my rational quite a bit in order to explain it to people I talk to who aren't as well versed in these subjects as we are. But it goes something like this:
Men and Women have natural human rights. The globe has been divided up in to a vast number of lawful (and some unlawful) governmental jurisdictions. Each governmental jurisdiction stands in support of a human being's natural rights to varying degrees.
Now, One gets to choose which jurisdiction and subsequent nationality, he want to live in. So, the question is, which jurisdiction will afford him the most protection of his natural rights? Barring the option of being a stateless person, and thus having no nationality, he's got to choose one.
Does he choose US citizenship? A US citizen relinquishes his natural rights in favor of Federal Government granted Civil Rights, and is subject to its statutory law rather than common law. This is because the jurisdiction of the United States only encompasses land outside that of the American Union: DC, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, & etc. where the Constitution has no force or effect. None of these places is "guaranteed a republican form of government," for instance. Indeed DC has the most glaringly UN-republican form of government of all. And a US citizen merely resides in a state because his nationality, and pledge of allegiance, is made to the United States and its jurisdiction.
Or does one choose the nationality of the State in which he was naturally born, such as New Hampshire where he would holds the status of "Non-Resident Alien of the United States?" Only the land encompassed by the nations in the Union, and the inhabitants there of, have access to the protections of their own State Constitutions, each of which are held accountable to the standards of the Constitution for the Union. This is where the common law exists and one's natural rights are best protected. It is also the jurisdiction where one is a law giver, and as such, is above Statutory Law.
Why on earth would anyone choose to be a US subject citizen when he could be a member of the body politic who founded the Union: "We The People.."
As I said before, it's all about jurisdiction. It is not really about sovereignty. The Marxists in the federal government will toy with, and badger, anyone who straddles the line while maintaining a foot in their legal jurisdiction.
Get out and be free.
Peter just seems like a dud to me. I didn't like much about whatever Z video my husband first put on for our "family viewing pleasure" and I found even less of anything of anything in this exchange.
Peter's little "Z" thing just seems like socialism -- vision of the anointed -- with astro-stardust in his eyes. In other words, stupid plus a herd of unicorns.
Much of his verbiage reminds of me of the French revolutionaries -- kill everyone who won't work toward our ideas of utopia. Peter seems to have little sense and a lot of lust. He's clearly no individualist. He put a bunch of pretty phrases together, but what I heard was he'd be willing to bash my brains to create his omelet utopia. I don't like anything about him or his pseudo-philosophy.
"In summary, this program does NOT offer a cure. It offers a mega dose of the disease itself."
the movie in collaboration with the 'venus project' titled
"zeitgeist moving forward"
promotes a 'future city' that is sustained with 03% of the population...
and c-r-e-e-p-y in many other ways...
be confused with
the movie of several years ago which was a real eye-opening wake up call!
skip new intro and start at 03:03:56
zeitgeist is a joke....
I could not help but think that Adam was in over his head at times. Of course its a bit easier to sit back, pause, rewind, replay...
Yet the interview was good enough. It brought out Peter Joseph's Marxist views, those OLD worn out proven false concepts that have been repackaged into shinny new (and wonderful) science bling bling bling talk. Yet those old concepts are antithetical to libertarian theory and Peter Joseph knows this, at least much more so than our good man Adam.
Here are those FALSE Marxist concepts espoused by Peter Joseph.
FALSE Marxist concept #1) Value is objective and can be calculated, i.e. the libertarian subjective theory of value is not true. Hence the price system can be done away with and wiser system of valuation put in place "that is in accordance the laws of nature (and bio-social pressures), where by we grow to develop and IMPLEMENT value systems based on these restrictions a world without money".
FALSE Marxist concept #2) The Labor Theory of Value is true and correct and we can, using statistical analysis calculate it.
FALSE Marxist concept #3) Marxist historical dialectic is true and correct.
FALSE Marxist concept #4) HUMANS have class-division, and classdivision is an evil, and it must be forcefully fought against as 'evolutionary neuropsychology tells us'.
FALSE Marxist concept #5) Voluntarism is a false principle to follow because force is not clear cut, its relative, and we are all connected, not individual islands. Just the exchange of an idea is force, influencing is force, having no job is force... ie, all those without jobs are "FORCED" to work for the one baseball bat manufacturing company that comes to town. Since we are not individuals, we are all connected, the company used "force" against the "community" by only paying a low wage.... where upon "we know" that the profits are not giving back to the people making the bats (Labor theory of value) and "we know" how much those bats "really cost" us (mankind) because we can now scientifically statistically understand the "true cost" of the wood and metal bats from nature as a whole. Hence we need to produce just enough to ensure sustainability and not exploitation of the "world's resources". We know all of this because of our "New" understanding of our place in the laws of nature & being able to relate to that and develop value systems based on that, a world without money.
FALSE Marxist concept #6) All of the above gives us "scientifically achieved" "social balance" and the right amount of happiness and tamed the greed of Mankind... ie, no one needs a green-blue Ferrari and a mansion. [except of course scientific party members, they will need one of course. See George Orwell's Animal Farm)
FALSE Marxist concept #7) "Finally we know what science is for". Its to be used for scientific planning. (gee I thought it was a methodology tool we use to get at truth, the "Is" rather than the "ought".). ... With a scientifically managed and value calculated economy, we will create enough abundance that we will "live in harmony" with the "deep coercion in nature, the laws of nature", and equalize the classes (end class conflict) and end Man's hierarchies. And while we will NOT have everything we want, wanting more would be a crime against humanity because, you see, we know want Man needs and we know how to make him live "within the laws of nature", scientifically.
Ok, enough of Peter Joseph. Now lets talk science. Real science.
Real science and particularly the sciences of man is a good thing, and the more science moves along in its understanding of Man's Nature, the more the libertarian prescription looks very good. What does NOT look good is Marxism. See Steven Pinker's wonderful book, THE BLANK SLATE: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. See here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial/dp/01420...
More over, Steven Pinker's latest book, has plenty to say on this argument over anarchy, big government, monarchy, etc. I greatly encourage all anarcho-capitalists to pick up the book as fast as you can. We all need to have this one under our belt, much like we all have Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard and Von Mises, Hazlitt, Ayn Rand, Milton and David Friedman all under our collective belts. Go get this book and lets start talking.
THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE: Why Violence Has Declined, by Steven Pinker.
Please buy today, Go here: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3D...
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: