The Ultimate Addendum Rebuttal is contained within...

From dozens of other people who wanted to talk about zeitgeist addendum in a positive way. Just search for zeitgeist addendum and you'll see the fascists like yourself are in the minority against true freedom lovers.

http://killfiat.blogspot.com/

This goofiness has run its course. No one takes this ultra-vague new-age nonsense seriously. Maybe the Zeitgeist boys can sign up Tom Cruise and the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (is he still alive?) to be spokesmen.

________________________________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

You are on the wrong site...

This is the Ron Paul supporters site.

Here's a point by point refutation of yet another misguided Addendum zealot.

"Despite my support for free-markets, I think we need to admit the fact that "pure free-market capitalism" has never actually existed and is just as idealistic as any of the other hypothetical systems. Yet you defend it religiously."

So because pure free-market capitalism has never exited is reason not to defend it? So back in the days when chattel slavery was legal you would no doubt object to abolitionist's idealism because "we've never had a society without slavery".

"You've got to wake up to the fact that even though free-market capitalism is better than what we have now, and is probably the best possible monetary-based economic system, that doesn't make it perfect. It still bears the same essential flaws that have got us into the mess we're in today."

After just saying free-market capitalism has never existed,now the author claims it "bears the same essential flaws that have got us into the mess we're in today", and goes on to say, "Capitalism is not devoid of problems; it is not the final solution."

Its a good idea to explain what we're talking about. Free-market capitalism is simply liberty with respect to people's economic activities. Any economic system other than free-market capitalism is an economic system infected with varying degrees of coercion - an economic system where some people force others to act against their own best judgment under threat of violence. It also turns out that not only is it the only economic system fully consistent with liberty it is also far and away the most efficient system for satisfyng people's wants. Yet the author focuses on it not being "devoid of problems". There are "problems" in all systems in that perfect knowledge is denied humanity and without such perfection problems will emerge. Fortunately we have the ability to reason by which we hopefully can overcome problems. The Addendum visionairies will be immersed in even worse problems should they ever try to rid the world of a price system - a point the Addendum supporters consistently refuse to address.

In a free-market environment you are, of course, free to enter any other voluntarily entered arrangements such as an Addendum style commune. All the free market economists teach with respect to such choices is that they are doomed to inefficiency if they seek to enjoy the benefits of a modern industrial society in the absence of a price system to rationally coordinate the billions of economic arrangements necessary to create and maintain such a society.

Nevertheless, the author asserts, "The point being made in Zeitgeist about the monetary-system is simple: a competition-based system for profit by differential advantage is destined to produce the problems we face today: corruption, elitism, poverty, crime, war, etc. Unfortunately, even a purely free market economy is no exception."

Curious that your author sees the result of a huge network of voluntary exchanges - which is what the free-market is - causing "corruption, elitism, poverty, crime, war".

"Corruption" implies dishonesty. Free exchange implies parties exchanging based upon differing values regarding the items exchanged. Dishonesty in such an environment is the exception. Dishonesty rising to fraud can occur in a free market and legal principles would provide remedies against such behavior, not to mention that a business that gets a reputation for dishonesty loses business rapidly thus has an incentive for fair dealing - an incentive that would not exist in your moneyless ideal world.

As to "elitism" - I suppose you mean some people simply thinking they are better in some respect than others. While a silly attitude, as long as no coercion is involved to force the "non-elite" into subservience, no big deal.

Your author alleges "Poverty" as an outcome of free markets, revealing your author fails to understand that the competitive aspect of free markets serves to reduce prices and improve quality for the masses. It is the market that has raised the standard of living for hundreds of millions of people beyond that which was enjoyed by kings of old - better medicine, better food and hygiene, better housing and clothes. Free markets are clearly the cure for poverty.

"Crime" - all crimes by definition consist of the intent to cause harm to the person or property of another. Hence it is activity whereby there is no mutual consent/volunteerism. As free-market activity is exclusively one of consent/volunteerism, crime is not cause by free trade.

Finally, "War" - the same argument applies here. War is extreme coercion. Free markets are extreme volunteerism. In a world of free trade and property rights war would not exist.

Then we come to perhaps the most erroneous statement the author makes: "Even if we could establish this supposedly perfect system, how long do you think it would it last? With time (decades or centuries), a few 'best players' in the game will inevitably gain massive wealth and power, which they are destined to use against others in order to secure their power forever. Sound familiar? That's why some people believe that evil is in our nature. If we promote the conditions that cause it, yes it is. Power corrupts."

This is just another varient of the oft-exploded "free-markets lead to destructive monopoly" myth. Economic theory tells us it is precisely the competition of the free market that prevents monopolists cornering the market, driving out competition and jacking up prices enormously and continuously. Historical analysis confirms the theory. Gabrial Kolko, historian at Toronto University, and himself a socialist, studied all the major industries of the Progressive Era and in his book, 'The Triumph of Conservatism', found all the dominant firms in these various industries petitioned the government for regulation because they were losing more market share to newcomers every year. And, since they were the "experienced" players in these fields the new government created regulators took action to stifle competition and ensure profits for their buddies in the established firms. They effectively cartelized these industries in the name of protecting the public. Thus, if government didn't have the power to regulate, as free market economists recommend, consumers would be much better served by free-markets and no coercive monopolies would occur.

Finally, your author improperly cites Lord Acton's dictum, "Power corrupts" in condemning free markets, oblivious to the fact Lord Acton was referring to "political" power - which has no place in free markets. The only power businesses in free markets have is to try and serve their customers better than their competitors - which can only be to the public's benefit.

Your author finishes by explaining Zeitguist's message as, "The theory is that if we stopped perpetuating this system of competition over scarce, poorly-managed resources, people would naturally reorganize at a grassroots level to work for a common goal without needing to compete amongst each other, and could do so without the need for central authority."

This is rife with error. First, if it is a free market the resources are being not only well managed but there is no other method that can manage them as well - since, as so many of we critics of Addendum have pointed out - only a free price system is able to coordinate resources to their most valued use. Further, rather than being detrimental, competition serves to make ever better and ever less expensive products. Competition encourages effficiency for the public welfare. Have you ever seen the dour, surly faces of counter clerks in the formerly Communist countries of Eastern Europe? As they got paid regardless of their service they had no incentive to serve well. The competitive process encourages an attitude of friendly service. Competition promotes congeniality between seller and buyer.

I, of course, don't expect any Addendum zealots to read, much less respond in a similar point by point manner to this post but I will know you failed to defend your position yet again.

marlow

Please tell me, where in the film does it say "no work, no market, no private property"?