0 votes

Do we have Abundance or Scarcity?

There have been alot of hotly debated topics about whether the Zeitgeist plan will work or not. The entire plan comes down to one fundamental question to me and that is do we have abundance or scarcity? My view is the world is abundant in all of the resources its people need. I see the scarcity in food and wealth as the artificially driven fascist workings of the New World Order.

Our abundance doesn't stop with just the necessities. We also have wonderful machines that, while they do need maintenance, can produce our automobiles, our houses and our clothes. These technologies today are in their infancy mostly because the New World Order understands its to their benefit to have human slaves taxed for their labor and their descendants can be taxed to feed into their monetary system.

The abundance isn't just in technology it's also in the infinite power derived from the sun, wind, waves and geothermal in our earth today.

Zeitgeist never told anyone they had to do anything. It offers a solution to humanity's oldest problem-how do we get away from money? The solution is for people to start self sufficient communities. As seen in this post: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/68239
It can be done one house at a time. Alot of other people have homesteaded on their own, but they're spread out across the nation perhaps with no contact from other like minded individuals. If they were to form a network of people who just traded amongst themselves then they could effectively "secede" from the (now) totally economic government.

Don't misunderstand me this "network" wouldn't be governed just a trade federation that trades whatever they need amongst each other. Kind of like ebay only without money. That's what I got from Zeitgeist, and that's the transition period I see as our possible future.
So I pass this question to you, do we have abundance or scarcity?




Comment viewing options

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

It depends on population size

In a finite world, the abundance of resources depends on population size in an inverse relationship:

As population size increases, the abundance of resources decreases.

A reasonable goal for sustaining healthy life on Earth is to match our population size to our available resources.

What collective "WE" are you talking about?

Are you claiming that you (and this collective you want to create) somehow have a RIGHT to the property and goods (food, etc) that are produced or saved by others?

Many people individually have abundance. Many others have scarcity.

The way our society is designed and supposed to function is that those who work and save will over time reap the rewards of their labor and will have abundance.

Those who do NOT labor or do NOT save but rather act as spendthrifts ...will suffer scarcity, and must either become WILLING to work and save, or to become dependent upon whatever "alms" those with abundance are WILLING to give.

If you are advocating something different -- that "society" or "the government" (or whatever name you want to attach to any "gang" or "mob" of people claiming scarcity creates some "right" or "obligation" to the fruits of other people's labor) -- then make certain that we know THAT is what you are proposing... naked "theft" in the guise of some socialistic or communistic system -- where MERIT is no longer a valid measure, but that mere "existence" gives you some inherent right to the property of others.

In other words, what you are advocating is MORE of what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

I know you won't get it

And that's okay. This has nothing to do with property rights and has everything to do with tapping infinite resource rights that no one owns.
Once people get that maybe they can understand the idea.

I know this is the ideal

I know this is the ideal libertarian view. But it doesn't totally work.

Of course it doesn't work...

Because there are ALWAYS people who want to thieve the property of others, and there are always other people who are willing to help them do it.

I guess that "works" but it doesn't mean we should have more of it.