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.

I haven't seen anything from

I haven't seen anything from any VP advocates except a bunch of pseudo-intellectual babbling about scarcity. I'm not 100 percent sold on Austrian Econ for every question, but as far as methodology and credibility, there is no comparison.

The Venus Project is just an emotional argument, saying we have sci fi technology, therefore it's a crime for it not be used to make a utopia. But like any utopia, and like the Venus Project's close cousin, communism, it all falls apart when you factor in human nature.

PS do yourself a favor and practice your you'res.

maslows hierarchy of needs

As the individuals in society progress past basic survival, its possible those individuals would flourish.


possible too that they wouldn't flourish. Possible they would just create new problems out of natural human restlessness and combativeness.

Your theory assumes you have a bunch of Beethovens waiting to be turned loose. Totally asinine. You have, for the most part, mental children who function best at a level approximating basic survival.


The theory assumes that if you have everything you want/need, then there is no reason to coerce others for anything. And those that you admonish for being "mental children" would not have the systemic disadvantages that cause them to be "mental children."


So the theory is that the, er, proletariats, can enjoy heaven on earth if really, really, really, really, really well-intentioned people can just "scientifically" control the, er, means of production?

Man, I can't figure out why that's familiar....


There's nobody in control of production. There's no state, no classes, and no money. There's no reason for people to have ill-intentions if there is no scarcity because you can have whatever you want.

There's no history lesson on this subject. It's new because we haven't had the capability to eradicate scarcity before. I know it sounds to good to be true, but it isn't. The question is, how do we build it? It isn't easy to automate every single menial labor position on the planet. It's one hell of an engineering problem.


another gray area..."scarcity." "Love." "Survival." You gotta get beyond PJ's buzzwords and explain how this fits in with anything we know about humans besides the fact that humans can, when circumstances are just so, make cool things.

You're quite a lot like a religious fanatic incapable of making sense outside the cult paradigm.

Watch the 2nd and 3rd movie!!!!!!

If you haven't watched the movies then you have no idea what your talking about!!!

How can you have an intellegent converstation bashing something you've never seen before?

How can you have such

How can you have such incredible, world-saving ideas and be incapable of making them sound even moderately intelligent?

I will probably spontaneously erupt from some part of the world.

It will probably spontaneously erupt from some part of the world.

let's say Iceland has a super computer in 20 years and the people decide to let the "ai" computer completely plan the economy. It runs 1000s of simulations for each and every decision and picks the best solution.

And lets assume the system is fantastically efficient... the world WILL adopt that type of system in time. but some people wont like it at first, but since the basic community wants and needs are put to an open source vote and the system it self IS open source... it will benefit the most people in the most efficient way possible and hopefully end basic needs scarcity..

Let just hope civil liberties are a central want when this system is built, because true democracy is a government made OF the people's wants.

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.

People aren't that stupid.

At least not yet. Public education hasn't been that successful.

this system would lend itself

this system would lend itself nicely to tyranny, since it is just the old "greatest good for the greatest number" BS in another form....a "scientific" reason, like Marxism, to sacrifice individual will for the sake of the group....it'd be quickly seized on by the power-hungry as an excuse to oppress.

Why it's important to not let utopian daydreams crowd out ethical principles.

You don't get it...

There is no government, no central planning, no police force. There is none of that.

There is no one controlling you in a resource based economy. There is no marxism. There is no work. Resource gathering is automated. If you want a house, you walk down to the housing factory and push a button and mindless mechanisms build your house. You want food, you go to the food dispensary and its there.

Structural violence is a part

Structural violence is a part of nature. I don't understand how they can claim to be able to eradicate it. Someone will always be bigger, stronger, more talented, and best suited. To think otherwise is simply naive. Even with some mega computer pooping out resources.

He also discounted the state

as being a prominent actor in the current morass.

To act as if removing the state from the equation is a negligible thing is disingenuous.


point. I viewed structural violence economically (market oriented).....but you're absolutely right...structural violence will always be present....unless we're all clones living in the exact same environment.

When Peter Joseph talked about competition

It reminded me a lot of John D. Rockefeller's Quote "Competition is a sin"

He railed against the evils having more than one cell phone company, and even went so far as to lament competition between convenience stores; not only that, he actually had the gall to lump such competition into the same category as war!

I wish they would've gotten

I wish they would've gotten into the "resource based economy". I really don't understand why Peter Joseph thinks anyone would have the incentive to do anything in a "resource based economy." It's seems like something that would just resort right back to trade and currency. For instance, if someone makes a very useful new gadget or tool, what would drive them to produce more for others who may not have the skills to make such a thing on their own? I've never heard him address this before.

Beep beep boop beep... I am a Paulbot... prepare for liberty and prosperity!

Thanks again, Cap

That was a great afternoon of listening, and I knocked out a list of chores while I listened.



LOVIN' the quality of discussion below!

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

Amazing 3hr conversation with Stefan and Joe



Ok, so this was as one sided as it could get.. I really thought Peter Joseph would've held his own a lot better from hearing him speak, but Molyneux destroyed every argument with facts and not small jabbish' ab hominems, unlike Peter.

I've read and listened to James Gilligan, Gabor Yate, Robert Sapolsky, and Richard Wilkinson many many times over because I see them all as pioneers in behavioral science and I learned a LOT about my life and others from listening to them, but it seems Peter's using the information they have provided incorrectly. Yes, there is a formula that brings about fear which brings violence and yes, it has a lot to do with inequality and classism, but the causes that he claims are creating this inequality are not entirely correct...
I think he's using the information in the way that gun ban activist use there's; guns = gun crimes, capitalism = poor people, so get rid of it completely.I understand the logic and where he came up with it, but there are components missing in these type of arguments. Like Molyneux explained, a true free market transaction means that both parties come out winning, both get something they want.
I hear the argument that in desperation you may have to sell low or may feel you lost out on a deal, but there is something called accountability and we should be taught day 1 on this Earth that you have to be responsible for your own actions and use critical thinking to make sure you can make smart informed decisions and deal with every aspect of life. This has to do with education and logic. You also have friends and family to help, especially when everyone is doing a lot better, financially.

It's really hard to explain a Voluntaryist society or even the free market to someone that hasn't heard of it before because we really haven't seen one in the US.. Most people really think that what we have now is capitalism, so the word will forever be seen as some evil tool used for personal greedy gain. The misconception is apparent, like how Peter admitted being personally screwed over by the system he called "capitalism" but it was just another form of government that hurt him, not a free market.

Also, he doesn't understand that in a Voluntaryist society prices of everything will basically be dirt cheap as there will forever be competing businesses and currencies with no monopolies, which in turn will help level out the inequality in our society and be affordable for almost everyone. The education system will be revamped and HAVE to compete for our children's attendance, same with hospitals and rehab centers; (I agree with Gilligan and would like to change our process of caging people to start rehabbing them instead).
There are so many aspects of life that would change from what we have now in a voluntaryist society, not only economically but socially.

Now, the RBE (resource based economy) system is a great idea and if there is a way to make sure the computerized algorithm of how resources could be allocated couldn't possibly be corrupted by anyone then I would be for that idea completely because it is very logical and peaceful, but right now there isn't one, so I stick with Anarchism as the only way to freedom.

Stefan Molyneux 1 Peter Joseph 0

Origins of the state

I thought this was a very informative debate and both speakers did a great job, with the possible exception of their own unique personality quirks.


As this article points out, from an anthropological perspective, I believe it does make sense to assume that the market came before the state.

After all, people had access to resources and traded them long before the creation of a state. So it was in this primitive free market, based on voluntary trade, that gave birth to laws and subsequently government enforcement.

So when Stefan doesn't concede that the state is actually a product of the market, I find him not being open-minded enough. Ultimately, if the market creates the state, and as Stefan mentioned, the state incentivizes market participants to use its mechanisms for unfair advantage, if we had a true free market, who is to say that this development of unfair mechanisms would not just develop again?

Even if the mechanisms didn't manifest in the form of a "state" as we know it today, the fact that when push comes to shove, people can be incentivized to cheat and play dirty shows that there would need to be fail-safes built into the market to prevent acquiring unfair levels of power.

The only method I see to manage that would be laws or regulations (which I am against), but here's the problem. Laws would require a state or some sort of centralized power for enforcement, and then we've created a system that's ripe for abuse and it's a catch 22! WE START ALL OVER AGAIN.

Can someone help me out here?

I really do think this was a great debate and I personally think it's great discussing conflicting philosophies, because that's how new philosophies can arise! :)

Stef was wrong on this point

Although it doesn't change his overall position.

The market is the state of nature and precedes the state. The state comes into existence when the context is such that enough wealth is created that a parasitic class is sustainable. This is why it usually follows significant agriculture. Farmers accumulate resources, and can't really run away. Human raiders become human ranchers eventually figure out they can move in with the herd and pretend to be one of them. This allows them to squeeze as many resources from the herd as possible, and also, incidentally, to protect their herd of humans from other ranchers.

The state always starts being seen as an oppressor but through various processes infiltrate the society, such that the predator class convinces the prey class that they are somehow better off for the predator class. Religion, public 'education', sharing some of the spoils, and forcing different superficially different groups to fight each other for a share of the spoils that the ruling class stole from all of them, all these and others are how Satan hides among us.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he did not exist.

Sounds like

the Mob

That's how it begins

Given time they provide some sort of services, and work a propaganda campaign to convince the tax cattle that they are better off. Then they become the government. You can see it today with the real mob in souther Italy or Al Qaeda or the Taliban. They provide some 'services'.

Like all ranchers they zealously protect their cattle from other ranchers, if not from their own abattoir.


Let me try to help.

The one thing you need is to have people be insightful and mindful of the long term consequences of their actions...and of course entirely responsible for them.

Points conceded:

1. It doesn't look like we'll get all of humanity on board any time soon. (Thus, the founder's noninterventionist approach---only create a limited sphere of self government among those who can handle it.) But basically a worldwide solution as either/both of these debaters envision is probably unrealistic.

2. We're not even getting a large (or even significant) number of people on board yet. It would just take about 3000 (of the right kind of people) to have a thriving voluntarist economy in a rural county and have the Federal and State governments essentially excluded. It would be a stateless society.

Point not conceded:

It is impossible to get those 3000 people. I think it is, but it's still going to take some work.

I'm glossing over where the minds of those 3000 people need to be, but the pieces are coming together. It's not with Ayn Rand, nor with Molyneux, nor certainly with Peter Joseph.

But connection to the land and preservation of resources for future generations has got to be there. Check out Wendell Berry (e.g., The Unsettling of America) to see the right direction.

In short, you need to create a society of people who reject any incentive to acquire an inappropriate level of power. That is the key. People may be "incentivized," but there's hope that people can think beyond the incentives and act accordingly. There's no reason to believe that's not possible (modulo the conceded points above).

Key quote:

Peter Joseph: "You need to make the necessities of life available to all without a price tag and without the need to compete."

Let's see:

I need to make the necessities of life available to all without a price tag and without the need to compete.

OK, thanks for the advice. That's really helpful. {sarcasm off}

Dear Peter:

Peter's speaking style is very intellectual and academic. Peter is obviously very smart. But his style of communicating IS EXACTLY what most people feel sick about when you discuss the topic of "philosophy" with regular folk.

If I were to share Peter's segment with my friends, they would say "you listen to this stuff?"

But I share Stefan content with them, and my friends say "wow, there are so many interesting points there."

Debate Free Market (Moly) vs Benevolent Dictator (Peter Joseph)

Peter Joseph seems to think it is better to create and maintain a benevolent dictator than allow the free market. The only answer he seems to have to make centralized planning work for the better is to build a really powerful computer. Oh, and everybody needs to wish for it.

He must have really hated Terminator, The Matrix, Eagle Eye and I-Robot.