31 votes

FINALLY: Stefan Molyneux debates Peter Joseph of ZeitGeist Movement + Moly on Joe Rogan Show - 9/24/2013!

Zeitgeist Versus the Market - Peter Joseph Debates Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
Published on Sep 24, 2013

Stefan Molyneux debates Peter Joseph of the Zeitgeist Movement on the nature and reality of the free market system.

For more information on Peter Joseph, The Zeitgeist Movement and the Culture In Decline series, please visit: http://www.peterjoseph.info - http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com - http://www.cultureindecline.com

The Joe Rogan Experience with Stefan Molyneux - Sep. 20, 2013

Stefan Molyneux
Published on Sep 24, 2013

Stefan Molyneux speaks with Joe Rogan on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. JRE #396 - Recorded on Friday September 20th, 2013 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Subjects include: media hypocrisy, wasted human potential, nature vs. nurture, epigenetics, fragmenting the central narrative, the availability of information, confirmation bias, changing the world through better parenting, daycare, single mothers, pharmaceutical drugs, why marijuana is illegal, the difference between boys and girls, memory, the corrupt financial system, connecting at a primal level, the backgrounds of MMA fighters, managing aggression, the mind/body dichotomy, making mistakes, circumcision, Joe's childhood, violence in involuntary relationships, drones, chemical weapons, accidents of birth as virtue, success through hard work, acting, stand up comedy preparation, the horrors of divorce for men, gender/intelligence, gender equality, lying to get laid, discipline and the future of mankind.

MP3: http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2491_Joe_Rogan_Exp...

Subscribe to the Freedomain Radio Podcast Feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/FreedomainRadioVolume6

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.fdrurl.com/donate

Bitcoin Address: 1Fd8RuZqJNG4v56rPD1v6rgYptwnHeJRWs
Litecoin Address: LL76SbNek3dT8bv2APZNhWgNv3nHEzAgKT

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com

Amazon US Affiliate Link: www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUS
Amazon Canada Affiliate Link: www.fdrurl.com/AmazonCanada
Amazon UK Affiliate Link: www.fdrurl.com/AmazonUK

Freedomain Radio Facebook: http://www.fdrurl.com/fb
Freedomain Radio Twitter: https://twitter.com/freedomainradio
Freedomain Radio Google+: http://www.fdrurl.com/google
Freedomain Radio LinkedIn: http://www.fdrurl.com/LinkedIn

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Resources are unlimited..if you understand the greatest resource

From George Reisman....Austrian Economist extrordinaire.

"The supply of economically usable natural resources expands as man increases his knowledge of nature and his physical power over it. It expands as he advances in science and technology and improves and enlarges his supply of capital equipment."

The more resources we use the more we will innovate and find other ways to recombine the elements to give us more resources....ABUNDANCE is the norm in a free society.
Link to Reismans article on
A Primer on Natural Resources and the Environment

i just listened to stefan

i just listened to stefan debating the guy from storm clouds gathering. To be honest, it kind of started to make me doubt anarcho-capitalism. The thing is society doesnt change unless the people do. govt is a reflection of us. even in a stateless society or anarcho-capitalist one there could still be corruption, tyranny, and hell on earth. the kind of govt u have etc doesnt even really matter. all that matters is how u treat eachother and the planet.

f___ all forms of govt.


Peter made a point when he said that since the market always has a tendency to take control of the power of the state, then inherently, the market is corrupt (paraphrased). Stefan agreed with this but said the market is only corruptible if the state is involved.

So Stefan is saying the market is not corrupt but only when the state is there.. - I disagree with this. I think the market and the players involved are always corruptible or corrupt (w/e) but market forces and consumers have the power to balance or tame that 'competition' which is naturally there to dominate and take control, which PJ speaks of.

"you're a funny dude, but who gives a fuck about that? I don't care about someone's wit, I care about the courage of their heart and the honesty of their mind."

I know guys like Peter

I know guys like Peter Johnson! They're morons. They don't actually think they're smart. They are just seriously insecure and have no concept of what they're talking about. Unfortunately for the rest of us, he wants desperately to be smart. So he masks his ignorance with big words and lots of adjectives to cover up what he doesn't know. Guys like this can maybe fool other idiots at a bar when everyone is drunk, but any serious person sees right through him. Granted... it takes about 5 minutes (max) to figure out that he's full of it(because his vocabulary makes you think he may be smart)... but he IS full of shit. Stefan is at least logical in his thinking... But Peter is just a moron. Sounds to me like he's just failed at everything he does in life, can't admit to himself that it's HIS fault so he blames it on imaginary things like "structural violence"... It alleviates his guilt and gives him an excuse as to why his life is such a failure.


IT's your turn to rebutt PJ's video follow up!!!...WOW! I guess the debate continues...


Could someone explain to me

how resources are not scarce?

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


infinite supply of natural resources...in a free society

Submitted by wineguy on Tue, 10/01/2013 - 02:10. Permalink

From George Reisman....Austrian Economist extrordinaire.

"The supply of economically usable natural resources expands as man increases his knowledge of nature and his physical power over it. It expands as he advances in science and technology and improves and enlarges his supply of capital equipment."

The more resources we use the more we will innovate and find other ways to recombine the elements to give us more resources....ABUNDANCE is the norm in a free society.
Link to Reismans article on
A Primer on Natural Resources and the Environment

Thank you.

Thank you.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.



Just wondering, why your asking this question. Did someone make the claim that resources are not scarce?

I thought I heard Peter Joseph mention

"post-scarcity." Unless I'm misunderstanding the term.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


Peter Joseph follow-up

Recently started following PJ. He just posted this YouTube video following up on the debate... Though I may not be sold on his positions, a lot of the points he brings up do seem to make sense to me personally and I think many are worthy of consideration at the very least. I personally find myself on the fence with much of this, almost in the same way I'm on the fence of supporting the Republican Party rather than the Libertarian party. If we acknowledge that the mainstream perpetuates the "false left/right paradigm", then what if we're not aware that we may also be inadvertently perpetuating a "false state/market paradigm" due to our own vested time and emotions in studying Austrian/anarcho-thought? Why must the debate be confined to only two options? Left/right? State/market? Where does planet Earth and the potential of post-scarcity and automation fit into these two-sided debates?


Look at who is most

Look at who is most uncomfortable in the chair moving back and forth and you see who lost the debate.... HINT Joseph got schooled...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Is everyone aware Stefan

Is everyone aware Stefan speaks poorly of Ron Paul, calls him a hypocrite over earmarks???

Watching Stefan vs. Peter was painful. Joe is the only sane of the three. I am subscribed to Stefan's channel because I do find some of his topics very interesting, being that I am AnCap leaning, I just want everyone to know how he feels about the individual that brought us together.


I am:

Is everyone aware Stefan speaks poorly of Ron Paul, calls him a hypocrite over earmarks???

In fact, I'm no "fan" of Moly. It's all info to me. Nothing more, nothing less.

That said, I do recognize his great ability to simplify with somewhat palatable dramatic verbal theatrics, in articulating freedom philosophy. And, among those who are publicly known who promote these ideas, he's very good at what he does. Plus, personally I'm kinda fascinated by this whole strange world, the whole post-YouTube era-thingy, where someone can actually, factually, even claim, 'I make a living talking "philosophy" to millions worldwide!' lol.

Stefan Molyneux: Ron Paul is NOT a ____!

Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 16:47

Because to me, if Molyneux were truly serious, and purely, purely-principled about being an anarchist, he'd have given up his Canadian passport, his driver's license, his property tax, hell LEFT the utterly socialist degenerate assbackwards-English 'Queen' geographical protectorate ruled by her ancient system of Viceroys where the Governor General IS the REAL head of state for ANY and ALL English Commonwealths, known as Canada, long ago.

But he hasn't!

So, OF COURSE, he himself is technically a hypocrite!

But then again, if that and his 'logic' were so, that would also make any and all persons who want to move away from the current system, also hypocrites, by definition, including myself and you and everyone else.

Behold, the undeniable reality that is the libertarian off-the-grid-paradox: in order to be free of the system, however short or long the interim, you have to work within the system, even at the risk of upholding, and worse: 'legitimizing the system,' by the mere virtue of this one unmistakable, un-rewritable, unchangeable reality: NONE of us had a choice in where, when, or into what system that we were born into, one that existed long before we were even zygotes.

To wit:

But I personally recognize that we all have to work initially within a system, to varying degrees, that we had zero choice in being born into, before we even attempt to move out of it:

To me personally, I only 'judge' general trajectory.

Suppose, IF 'we should all agree' on anything, or at least by among those who have professed respect for the freedom philosophy so espoused by Dr. Paul and others in the Liberty/Freedom/Patriot movement, R3VOLution-spheres from paleoconservatives, to O.G. militia, to Constitutional minarchist libertarians to ancaps/voluntaryists/agorists? I'd submit that 'it should be' that all should agree that anything more voluntary than coercive is better, across the board, and believes in or at least abide by as best one can by the Golden Rule: 'Do unto others...'/NAP (the Non Aggression Principle/Axiom: the non- of force).

Beyond that, I'm not sure if any other 'agreement' is really necessary or even can be achieved.

As you may have guessed from my avatar, I don't believe in the legitimacy of ANY state whatsoever.

That said, I'm not someone who does not recognize or appreciate the fact that human liberty and freedoms, is a constant, generational fight.

And, even the noble goal of individually being able to voluntarily associate with each other and to have human souls evolved to an epoch in which most if not all truly understand the fundamental concept of self-ownership, all these things take a long time to bear fruit, and in fact, may not even be feasible in my lifetime.

Thus, I've ALWAYS valued multiple paths and multi-pronged approach to get there; as NONE of us had a choice as to where we were born, or into what existent system that was present long before any of us would be born into, without our choice: by default and factually, we're already born into a system in which we all must face the paradox that even if you really wanted to leave the 'system,' you must first have to participate in it (ie. you're not gonna move into BitCoins or Gold without using Fed.Res.Notes, 1st, unless by barter, even then, you may want to consider how many State-mechanisms were involved that intervened into your life, from your home to where you traveled to meet that person TO barter), risking even if temporarily help 'upholding' and often even by 'consent,' 'legitimizing it,' however brief or prolonged.

Plus, as someone who values individual volition and initiative, people are ONLY gonna do what they like and what they love, or are driven to do, whether it's fixing their motorcycle engines, to painting canvas, or getting politically involved, or in what exact capacity they choose to get politically involved.

So, I see nothing wrong with people using current, existent mechanisms, including political ones, to change, despite the fact that I personally believe that given that paradigm, the best one can do or hope to accomplish is to slow down the PACE of tyranny, and not the tyranny itself, when the very mechanism you're fighting in, is at its core tyrannical.

The most optimum goal WITHIN the existent political paradigm and mechanism? Is at best to nudge-rudder it in a more human freedom-oriented trajectory, IMHO.

So, personally, even those low-level personal spats and cheap principally impure asinine BS-'I'm more libertarian than you, so meh!' nonsense so prevalent among 'libertarians,' I generally just ignore all that as an acceptable level of childish-ego-play native to all humans, regardless of what philosophy one chooses to pursue or lives by.

lol. that's my 'libertarian'-c'est la vie .D

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

i think Peter Joseph

thinks hes smarter than he actually is... it's almost as if he was just trying to throw as many large words out as he could in order to sound intelligent. When in actuallity i think he didn't even understand half of what he was saying. Sefan ftw


while obviously a well-educated guy, seems to like using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. He also holds quite a few of his ideas to be "self-evident" and unnecessary to explain or justify.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


PJ has a great point

the drive to compete for scarce resources is the root cause of the state as the state yields the ultimate advantage, however this drive would manifest other evils even if the state was abolished.

But then, somehow, he decides that it's smart to keep the state, even though it's root cause is to use force to secure scarce resources... what??? Yes, this evil would try to manifest, but it would be less likely to be successful if you take away it's perceived authority. If they had to use overt violence it would be easy to recognize and condemn. It's the lie that the gov is here to protect you that screws us.

poor peter joseph

he lets his emotions tamper with his rational thinking. he sees all this unjustice on earth...the unjustice in his life and he wants it to be fixed...as he feels powerless to fix it he longs for "something" to fix it. sad, he is so intelligent but can't see that his longing to be saved by the state or anything else will hinder his growth on ALL levels.

DJP333's picture


Made it through the first hour of Molyneux and Rogan. Such an interesting conversation, they're all over the place! Thanks for sharing AnCap.

"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different." ~CW

the molyneux rogan interview is 3hrs lol?


Rothbard's message to Peter

Rothbard message to Peter Joseph:

“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.”

Peter Joseph has a Hobbesian view of human nature. Here Rothbard clears Peter's muddied mind.

It is the state that is ripping us all off; it is the state that is the common enemy of mankind. And who is the state? It is any group who manages to seize control of the state’s coercive machinery of theft and privilege. Of course these ruling groups have differed in composition through history, from kings and nobles to privileged merchants to Communist parties to the Trilateral Commission. But whoever they are, they can only be a small minority of the population, ruling and robbing the rest of us for their power and wealth. And since they are a small minority, the state rulers can only be kept in power by deluding us about the wisdom or necessity of their rule. Hence, it is our major task to oppose and desanctify their entrenched rule, in the same spirit that the first libertarian revolutionaries opposed and desanctified their rulers two hundred years ago.

from his grave, and onto eternity!

still true, and more important than EVER!

it is truly amazing that what almost seems like about 99% of MSM talking heads on TV talking about economics have rarely read even primers on Econ like Hazlitt's Econ in 1 lesson, yet, they 'know' everything apparently, or rather, if they repeat what they're told TO regurgitate and parrot the Ruling Class' press releases, they 'know' everything.

you really wonder if MSM-douchebags can even tie their shoelaces without a press release from the Fed.Res. or the WhiteHouse.

worse, for someone like Peter Joseph, whom, you'd think that if he was curious enough to actually read Federal Reserve's own public info on how their fractional reserve banking works, and by what ratio, etc. and actually make a series of 'documentaries' on it, how is it that he has not read further into multitudes of solutions also publicly available? I never understood that.

It's like if I'm gonna critique the Zeitgeist 'movement' and Jacque Fresco's "Venus Project," I'd actually had to have watched or read about their info, TO critique it with relevance, no?

It was weird; when Peter released his 1st Zeigeist, it was a great primer and eye opener for a lot of people.

Then, at least in the 1st 15min of Zeitgeist 2, it was one of THE BEST documentaries on HOW EXACTLY the Federal Reserve system works! Then of course, the rest of that film rolled around into the Venus Project, and you're left thinking:

'So... you know the problem with the world is a bunch of power hungry degenerates running an established political institution/mechanism for dominance and control via command-control economy, yet your solution is....a dedicated centralized select technocratic elite-run central command-control super duper unicorn AI that supposedly knows about the exact amount of earth's resources and 'human resources' and distribute goods and labor accordingly...'cause that's NOT communism, or fascism?? Like WTF Peter??'

IF Peter Joseph was sincere, and somehow truly believes that another form of high tech communism is the answer, it's disappointing to say the least, to watch someone who's worked both in media and as an 'equities' trader, then supposedly 'broke free of the system'... only to find, and WANT another prison command-control system as his savior??!!??

Sad and disappointing. Pity.

But, worse: if his plan was to sucker in, tap into the obvious public discontent for anything establishment, then to PsyOp redirect it to communism again, just with a high tech gloss, aka. "Venus Project," let alone, pushing "Venus" for someone whose first documentary 'exposed' the occult.

And, like um Peter, um isn't Venus = Satan or the "Shining Star"/"Morning Star" in 'their' occult speak that you exposed so well in the 1st 15min of your first Zeitgeist film?

Nope. Nothing weird or coinkydink about that name! NOT!

Misguided or intentional?

Frankly, it doesn't matter, when the solution he proposes is just communism/centralized command-control by any other name, no?

Now, 'benign'-dictatorship can and often does exist at individually owned small private biz. But as a political paradigm in which others are 'expected' to live under? That's tyranny by any other name, especially when one calls it 'voluntary' yet, it REQUIRES full participation of the world for Venus Project to 'work.'

Arguendo: like the fictional Dharma Initiative from the TV series Lost, if the V-proj. proponents were able to find themselves an enclave to test out their Venus Pod-city commune?

Good for them! Do it, er...like the Dharma Init.!

Then let us know how it works.

Dear V-Prodders, let us know: if within your own Venus-Pod city, if you can self-sustain yourselves with food and Venus-decided manufactured goods, with the only natural or artificial resources available for you, to extract from the land or sea in which Venus Pod-city occupies.

If they can't make it 'work' in their secluded enclave and realize that it can only work when EVERYONE must participate for the Venus to figure out exactly where all earth's natural resources are and how they can be allocated...even though, there is NO WAY to be 100% correct about exactly what and how much earth naturally produces any given item, so...all that is supposedly different than the failed current status quo crap or communism...how?

Think Peter's so vested in the Venus Project now, it's become its own thing.

Like what Joe & Stef said about revolution: "The point of the revolution is about resolution." So when a 'movement' that began as a means to resolve an issue, but doesn't, and it eventually just becomes about keeping an organization that was initially formed to champion that issue, to keep going? It failed, already.

Or as Ernie Hancock puts it: "when an organization becomes more important than the movement itself, you've already failed."

It's the endless historical constant about ALL group-dynamic: the best way to kill a movement is to control it, and the only way control-freaks know how to 'let things be' is to control it, via an organization as their sole mechanism to rudder their agenda. But when that happens, we all know it was never about 'letting things be' no?

Now, even in the liberty movement, there are various organizations pushing influence and dialog in varying degrees. Now, most are about waking other human souls up. Some, obviously are very much politically directed. But, something like Venus project, which professes to be anti-establishment and non-political, but when the very thing they want is very much 'establishment' infrastructural paradigm of centralized control and in fact REQUIRES EVERYONE to 'participate' it instantly becomes more phony astroturf than "Tea Party Express."

It's sad really. Because A LOT of well meaning people respected Peter Joseph enough to at least hear what he had to say, but even after watching his fairly in depth articulation for what he wanted and what his proposed solution was, aka. Venus Project, like Stockholm Syndromees, they're still trying to rationalize just a fancy new shiny thing, for what it has always been: communism.

So sad...

Now, had they actually evolved the Venus Project concept as a voluntary experiment? I'd tell them to go for it, like Sea-Steading.

See if it works.

And, IF they actually learned to admit that there is no humanly possible way, nor an AI (built by the same human minds who can't figure schit out) capable of 100% knowing the exact amount of everything that earth naturally produces or has 'stored' underneath the ground at any given moment for a single centralized system to be accurate as to be able to allocate equally or even efficiently, and better, offered evolved solutions? That, would be at least commendable, as it'd demonstrate that their focus was on actual solutions, not to keep a fictional notion of Venus Project alive, for its own sake.

But as it stands, their unicorn super duper Venus AI would be built based on fundamentally erroneous foundation about the nature of earth's resources, and extraction of those resources. And, not to mention, the entire Venus Project is predicated on the delusion that humans favor non-choice conformity.

In some ways, people substitute no-choice at all in larger political spheres for individual-level choices, be it cars, food, toys, or electronics.

The ability to make a choice, is the psychological act of making a decision. An active thought...er, action. And deciding on something is one of the most immediate psychological assurances that you're "in control"...of something, or at least your own life; what little choice one can make at individual levels makes humans happy.

So, to even take that one psychological assurance away from a human soul, and assume all Venus Project humans SHOULD like a single version of a music player, or a mode of transport, food, or energy conduit, is a morbid faux-intellectual demonstration by Peter Joseph/ZeitGeistMovement adherents and Jacque Fresco of their utter cluelessness of human nature, and what drives each individual, at the core.

In fact, I'd submit that the Venus Project advocates LACK understanding of human nature, exponentially more than that of the Ruling Class, who have made it their generational 'life's work' to study humans in order to control them with efficiency, as if some aliens landed on earth who are studying humans like guinea pigs to see what they are, what drives them, etc. scientifically.

So if they haven't figured out, nor truly understand human behavior, even as bad as it is, how do they honestly expect to offer even a 'benign' centralized command-control structure based on actual reality?

The whole thing is absurd. In fact, the Venus Project is more lunatic and idiotic than the current, fraudulent Bankster-based/built Matrix that we're currently living under.

But, as stated before, if the V-proj. advocates are truly serious, they should consider some obvious criticisms against them and truly ask themselves WHY people who have taken the Red-pill are so against it, for very specific reasons. Seeing as how ALL 'movements' can only survive with more 'converts' they should be able to address those issues.

So, unless they admit at least publicly that their proposed solutions do in fact share most fundamental basis of communism, no one geopolitically awake could ever take them seriously as anything other than communists trying to re-sell it by repackaging it in the 21st century under the rubric of a high-tech veneer.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Painful to watch

Wow, Molyneux mopped the floor with this guy... I love watching heavy-weight boxing, however, if this were a boxing match the referee would have given Peter Joseph a 10 count early in the first round. It is amazing how Molyneux proceeded to build a foundation, then a brick wall from the bottom up, with logical premises.. whereas Joseph was just flinging mud balls into the air out of nowhere, with no basis what-so-ever.

Peter appealed to emotion

Peter appealed to emotion with his story of how his friend committed suicide when he got fired.

Also, like any control freak

he tried to control the direction of the conversation from the get go
'I would like to keep the discussions to the points I previously sent you(paraphrased)'

Consequences of self-interest

Peter can't understand how self-interest serves others. The drive for personal gain creates altruistic results.

Adam Smith: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

The exception is when people use the violence & theft of the state to gain and unfair advantage. But the state can only exist if the people who are being taken advantage of, don't realize it and keep supporting it.

Walter Williams explains why greed is good ---


Joseph's points

1. Survival pressures compel trade and therefore trade is not voluntary.
2. the drive to compete for scarce resources is the root cause of the state as the state yields the ultimate advantage, however this drive would manifest other evils even if the state was abolished.
3. Technology exists which can produce enough benefit to satisfy humanity's needs-thus eliminating survival pressures and the subsequent drive to compete for scarce resources.
Valid points. Judging from his movies, I think he wants a centrally planned totalitarian gov as a solution.

However he makes some goofball points too...

Like lack of competition:
If i can build a better, more attractive cell phone, then why shouldn't i offer it to my neighbors? Or make a better grocery store...or whatever I think I can do better/more efficiently/more effectively?

Exactly he was arguing FOR monopoly

Three cell providers competing for business.. it's inefficient!

Problem is PJ is profoundly economically illiterate. Not somewhat. Profoundly. Even Krugman, the captain of the magical thinking economics club, doesn't assert the Hoover/FDR mantra that competition is bad.

PJ is you think competition is bad, per se, you are not living in the future, you are living in the past that created the great depression.

He's like an idiot savant, mostly idiot, who has a decent vocabulary, not too good, but decent, and puts together words in random connection to bamboozle his cultists.


He is trying to capture this insight he has, but his desire to trump up his discovery might be getting in his way.
His three fundamental points are true-ish. Good insights. But the conclusions he draws are goofy. But his goal is noble.
1. generally, one's lack of something he needs to survive compels him to trade. Therefor the act of trade is not voluntary.
---But that is not "the market" as the market is just the ability for one to trade with another. so taking away the ability to trade will not resolve the lack.
---As man progresses, technologies progress, and the bare needs of survival become cheaper and easier for the individual to obtain- thus reducing lack and the pressures it puts on individual to trade.

Abundance would be game changing. Maslows hierarchy of needs.