of their situation, it seems. I commend you on that because most people don't get their direction very quickly. It leads many to think they're about centralized socialism under a different label.
Your point comparing Z and Ancap is most relevant. If I could add the ultimate Libertarian, free-market system to this comparison, what we're left with is various stages down the same road.
If we could suddenly fix all of our financial problems completely, we would end up with free-market Libertarians running the day. People would be wealthy if they were productive. Corruption and crimes would not pay so they would fade into the past. Government power and size would dwindle down to the most minimal system. Stage 1.
If this system continued to work, people's wealth would skyrocket to the point where, as compared to today, everyone would be a millionaire. As such, the social standing being tied to financial wealth (the concept that relates money to power now) would be forgotten. Today, we drop our extra pennies in the convenience store cup because they're not worth our time. In this scenario, the wealth equivalent to a day's or month's expenses will be treated that way. This is the proposal that the Zeitgeist group advocates we skip directly to. While possible, it's insanely improbable with the current geopolitical environment. Stage 2.
Moving beyond that extreme individual wealth world, some would question the existence of government in the first place. If this led to the elimination of it, we would have ancap ruling the day. Stage 3.
This stage heavily relies on the virtuous people to publicly overcome the criminal, mental, apathetic and the sleeping masses. Those sleepers just happen to include the tops of almost every industry, government and elites. Convincing them of the possibilities is very problematic.
The problem with moving from 1 to 2 is that it will fail unless the entire switchover is done globally all at once. Barring a globally unanimous movement, the transition period yields increasing violence with increased speed. So what you get is either less violence that lasts decades or enormous violence that lasts only months.
So... I came to the conclusion that we must first devalue the impact of money in our lives - break the ties between the social ladder and personal wealth. In other words, we must become wealthy on an individual basis, independent of social status, returning equality to the system, before any transition at all.
However, in hunting for the "how" to fight inequality by using only free market principles we all here believe in, I simply tracked down where our money goes. What I came away with is that our productivity is turned into wealth at certain rates that depend on our choices. However, that wealth can only go to one of two places. It either stays with the producer or it ends up in the hands of the big banks. There is absolutely no in-between. That's the bad news.
The good news is this really makes it easy to fix and that is the topic of my book. It's still awaiting a good editing and I always feel there's more I should include in it but if people are interested, PM me and I may just send out a copy in .doc format.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: